I'M DAN KASTNER, THE SCIENTIFIC
DIRECTOR EMERITUS OF THE
NATIONAL GENOME INSTITUTE AND IT
IS MY ENORMOUS PLEASURE TO
WELCOME YOU TO THE 16th
INSTALLMENT OF THE 21st YEAR OF
DEMYSTIFYING MEDICINE, A COURSE
THAT IS SET UP SPECIFICALLY TO
BRIDGE THE EXCITING DEVELOPMENTS
OF BIOLOGY WITH ENGINEERING AND
MEDICINE.
KNOWING THERE IS SO MUCH
INFORMATION IN THIS FIELD IT
CAN'T FIT INTO ONE HEAD WE NEED
COLLABORATIONS AMONGST US TO GET
THE COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING.
WE HAVE SHOWN THE ICONIC
BROOKLYN BRIDGE, WHICH CROSSES
THE EAST RIVER IN NEW YORK.
OF COURSE, IT WAS UNDER
CONSTRUCTION IN THE 1860s
THROUGH THE EARLY 1880s.
THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN BY
DR. ARIAS' GRANDFATHER WHEN THE
BRIDGE WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
IT IS GOING BETWEEN MANHATTAN
AND BROOKLYN, WHICH AT THAT
TIME, WERE SEPARATE CITIES,
ACTUALLY.
AND YOU CAN SEE ON THAT CATWALK
ON THE LEFT THOSE TWO GUYS
STANDING THERE.
AND THAT PROBABLY IS A BASIC
SCIENTIST FROM MANHATTAN AND A
CLINICIAN FROM BROOKLYN WHO ARE
TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE
MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC ISSUES OF
THE DAY.
AND THAT IS WHAT WE INTEND TO DO
THIS AFTERNOON, IS TO FOCUS IN
ON SOME REALLY INTERESTING STUFF
THAT BRINGS TOGETHER BIOLOGY AND
MEDICINE.
IF WE CAN HAVE THE NEXT SLIDE.
WE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
THIS WEEK'S PRESENTERS.
SO THE TITLE OF THIS WEEK'S
SESSION IS HOW MINDS AND BRAINS
CREATE LANGUAGE.
AND OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS GOING
TO BE DR. EVELINA FEDORENKO.
SHE IS THE FREDERICK A. AND
CAROL J. MIDDLETON CAREER
DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
OF NEUROSCIENCE IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF BRAIN AND
COGNITIVE SCIENCES AT MIT.
SHE IS ALSO A MEMBER OF THE
McGOVERN INSTITUTE.
SHE WENT TO HARVARD AND DID HER
PH.D. IN COGNITIVE SCIENCE AT
MIT AND A POST DOC AT MIT WITH
ONE OF THE COVETED K-99-R00
GRANTS.
HER GROUP STUDIES THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LANGUAGE
AND OTHER COGNITIVE ABILITIES.
SHE STUDIES THE PROCESSING OF
LINGUISTICS SIGNALLING IN THE
BRAIN, BY MULTILINGUAL
INDIVIDUALS, CROSS ASPECTS OF
MULTIINFRASTRUCTURE LANGUAGE AND
LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT.
HER GROUP USES A NUMBER OF
SOPHISTICATED APPROACHES,
FUNCTIONAL MRI TO UNDERSTAND
LANGUAGE PROCESSING IN NORMAL
INDIVIDUALS, INDIVIDUALS WITH
DEVELOPMENTAL BRAIN DISORDERS
AND INDIVIDUALS WITH A SPECIAL
APTITUDE WITH LANGUAGE.
SHE IS GOING TO BE OUR FIRST
SPEAKER.
OUR SECOND SPEAKER, IF WE CAN
HAVE THE NEXT SLIDE, DR. NADIA
BIASSOU.
SHE IS A STAFF CLINICIAN AND
DIAGNOSTIC NEURORADIOOLOGIST IN
THE RADIOLOGY SCIENCES.
SHE IS CHIEF OF SBE GRATIVE
NEUROSCIENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS
AT THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR
DEAFNESS AND OTHER COMMUNICATION
DISORDERS.
AN ADJUNCT PROFESSOR OF
RADIOLOGY.
A CORE MEMBER OF THE GEORGETOWN
MISSION RADIOLOGY AND THE
CONSORTIUM AT PENN.
SHE EARNED HER MASTERED AND
PH.D. AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
PENNSYLVANIA AND SHE RECEIVED
GENERAL DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING
TRAINING AT GEORGETOWN AND
SUBSPECIALTY FELLOWSHIP IN
NEUROLOGY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
PENNSYLVANIA.
HER WORK IS INTERDISCIPLINARY
RESEARCH APPLYING NEUROSCIENCE,
NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
LINGUISTICS AND BIOMEDICAL
IMAGES.
SHE IS A MENTOR AT GEORGETOWN
AND GEORGE WASHINGTON.
CURRENTLY SHE IS THE DIRECTOR OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF RADIOLOGY
CLINICAL NEURORADIOLOGY.
WE HAVE A SPECTACULAR LINEUP OF
SPEAKERS THIS AFTERNOON AND I'M
GOING TO TURN THINGS OVER TO DR.
FEDORENKO.
EV, PLEASE, TAKE IT AWAY.
>> THANK YOU FOR INVITING ME TO
SPEAK IN THIS COURSE.
IT IS A REAL HONOR AND GREAT
PLEASURE TALKING TO BE FOLLOWED
BY NADIA.
I'M EXCITED TO SHARE WITH YOU
SOME THINGS WE HAVE LEARNED
ABOUT THE LANGUAGE SYSTEM FROM
THE MORE BASIC SCIENCE
PERSPECTIVE.
I'M GOING TO ORIENT US A LITTLE
BIT FIRST BECAUSE LANGUAGE IS A
MULTIFACETED COGNITIVE ABILITY.
SO WHEN WE UNDERSTAND LANGUAGE,
LINGUISTIC INPUT CAN COME IN
THROUGH OUR EARS LISTENING TO
SOMEBODY SPEAK, OR OUR EYES
READING LANGUAGE OR IF WE ARE
WATCHING SOMEBODY SIGN IF WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT SIGN LANGUAGES.
ONCE IT IS ANALYZED BY THE
PERCEPTUAL MECHANISMS, WE LINK
TO OUR STORED LINGUISTIC
KNOWLEDGE INTERPRETATIONS AND
THIS IS HAPPENING ON THE SIDE OF
COMPREHENSION.
WE RECOGNIZE FAMILIAR WORDS AND
PUT THEM TOGETHER IN SENTENCES.
ON THE SIDE OF PRODUCTION WE CAN
USE THE SAME KNOWLEDGE
REPRESENTATIONS TO CONVERT AN
ABSTRACT CONCEPTUAL
REPRESENTATION OR THOUGHT INTO A
SEQUENCE OF WORDS WE CAN THEN
SEND DOWN TO THE MOTOR SYSTEM TO
EITHER IMPLEMENT IT IN
ARCTICLATOR MOVEMENTS LIKE I'M
DOING NOW WITH SPEAKING OR WRITE
OR TYPE OR SPEAKERS OF SIGN
LANGUAGE WE CAN SIGN THE
MESSAGE.
WE NOW KNOW EACH OF THOSE
COMPONENTS OF THE BROADER
LANGUAGE SYSTEM IS SUPPORTED BY
A SEPARATE SET OF MENTAL
COMPUTATIONS IMPLEMENTED IN
DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE BRAIN.
WHAT I FOCUS ON IS THE CHUNK OF
LANGUAGE IN THE RED BOX HERE,
WHAT I CALL THE HIGH-LEVEL
COMPONENT OF LANGUAGE
PROCESSING.
IT IS JUST A LITTLE SITUATION OF
THE QUESTION AND PROBLEM THAT I
WILL TALK ABOUT.
SO I OFTEN START MY TALKS WITH A
QUOTE BY A FAMOUS VISION
SCIENTISTS, DAVID MARR WHO WROTE
THAT TO UNDERSTAND THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BEHAVIOR
AND FWRAN, ONE HAS TO BEGIN BY
DEFINING THE FUNCTION OR
COMPUTATIONAL GOAL BY A
BEHAVIOR.
ONLY THEN CAN A NEUROSCIENTIST
DETERMINE HOW THE BRAIN ACHIEVES
THAT GOAL.
ONCE WE UNDERSTAND WHAT EACH
CELL IS DOING WE WILL UNDERSTAND
LANGUAGE AND CONSCIOUSNESS AND
OTHER HIGH-LEVEL FUNCTIONS.
HE IS SAYING, NO, YOU NEED TO
ALSO CONSIDER THIS OVERALL GOAL
FOR SOMETHING TO EXIST IN TERMS
OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGICAL
CONSIDERATIONS.
SO WHAT IS THE COMPUTATIONAL
GOAL OF LANGUAGE?
WHY DID LANGUAGE EMERGE IN OUR
SPECIES?
LANGUAGE WHICH WE CAN BROADLY
DEFINE AS A GENERATIVE SYSTEM OF
FORM MEANING MAPPINGS EMERGED IN
OUR SPECIES QUITE SOME TIME AGO,
RECENTLY IN THE EVOLUTIONARY
TIME SCALE.
WHY DID IT EMERGE?
TO WHAT END?
TO MANY COMPONENTS OF MANY
BIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS, THE
FUNCTIONS WITH REALLY CLEAR.
WE HAVE EYES TO SEE, LUNGS TO
BREATHE, LEGS TO WALK AND RUN
AND SO ON.
FOR LANGUAGE THIS TOPIC HAS BEEN
A FIERCE DEBATE FOR DECADES AND
EVEN CENTURIES.
TWO IDEAS HAVE BEEN PROMINENT.
ONE PERHAPS THE MORE INTUITIVE
ONE.
WE HAVE LANGUAGE TO SHARE
THOUGHTS WITH EACH OTHER.
WE MIGHT SPECULATE WITH WHY THAT
MIGHT BE USEFUL WITH PROPOSALS
FROM FACILITATING COOPERATIVE
BEHAVIORS HUNTING TO PASSES ON
KNOWLEDGE, TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE
TO OUR OFFSPRING OR SOCIALLY
RELEVANT INFORMATION LIKE WHO TO
TRUST AND SO ON.
AN ALTERNATIVE IDEA, HOWEVER, IS
LANGUAGE EVOLVED TO HELP US
THINK MORE COMPLEX THOUGHTS.
ONE OF THE FAMOUS PHILOSOPHERS
OF LANGUAGE, NOAM CHOMSKY, HAS
BEEN ARGUING AGAINST LANGUAGE
SERVING THIS FUNCTION.
HERE IS A QUOTE FROM JUST A
COUPLE OF YEARS AGO WHERE HE
SAID ALMOST ALL OF YOUR USE OF
LANGUAGE IS INTERNAL, VICHLLY
NOTHING TO DO WITH
COMMUNICATION.
THE IDEA THAT LANGUAGE HAS
EVOLVED AS A SENGS OF
COMMUNICATION OR DESIGNED FOR
EDUCATION MAKES NO SENSE.
HE SAID LANGUAGE ENABLES GREATER
EXPRESSION OF THOUGHT.
THE SYSTEMS OF THOUGHT USE
LINGIST WICK EXPRESSIONS FOR
REASONING, INTERPRETATION,
ORGANIZING ACTION AND OTHER
MENTAL ACTS.
LUDWIG WITTGENSTEIN AS WELL.
RELYING ON SIMPLE PHILOSOPHIES
AND INTUITION DOESN'T SEEM TO
FIT.
FIRST, I WILL EXAMINE THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LANGUAGE
AND COMPLEX THOUGHT AND
REASONING.
SECOND, I WILL TELL YOU ABOUT
PROPERTIES OF LANGUAGE.
AND WE CAN SEE WHETHER LOOKING
AT THOSE PROPERTIES CAN SHED
LIGHT ON TO WHAT THE SYSTEM MAY
BE USEFUL FOR.
AND I'M GOING TO ARGUE AGAINST
THE IDEA THAT LANGUAGE EVOLVED
FOR THINKING MORE COMPLEX
THOUGHTS AND FOR THE IDEA OF
LANGUAGE AS A PRIMARY TOOL FOR
COMMUNICATION.
SO BEFORE I GO INTO THE EVIDENCE
ITSELF, LET ME INTRODUCE TO YOU
THE SYSTEM I HAD PUT IN THE RED
BOX IN MY FIRST SLIDE.
THE SYSTEM THAT SUPPORTS
LANGUAGE PROCESSING IN YOUR
BRAIN.
WE HAVE KNOWN FOR QUITE SOME
TIME THERE IS A SET OF AREAS IN
OUR BRAIN IN THE LEFT HEMISPHERE
IN MOST INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE
IMPORTANT FOR LANGUAGE.
THOSE REGIONS ARE WORKING HARD
IN ALL OF YOUR BRAINS RIGHT NOW
AS YOU ARE UNDERSTANDING WHAT
I'M SAYING.
USING BRAIN IMAGING TOOLS LIKE
FUNCTIONAL MRI, WE CAN FIND
THESE REGIONS IN A FEW MINUTES
OF SCANNING CONTRASTING BRAIN
RESPONSES WHEN I HAVE YOU READ
OR LISTEN TO SOME SENTENCES
COMPARED TO PROCESSING STIMULI
THAT HAVE PERCEPTUALLY SIMILAR
FEATURES, BUT DON'T HAVE MEANING
AND STRUCTURE.
FOR EXAMPLE, I COULD HAVE YOU
LISTEN TO SPEECH IN THE
LANGUAGE -- IN A LANGUAGE YOU
UNDERSTAND VERSUS SPEECH IN SOME
UNFAMILIAR LANGUAGE.
OR READING SENTENCES COMPARED TO
SEQUENCES OF STRINGS OF LETTERS
THAT DON'T FORM WORDS AND DON'T
COMBINE IN ANY WAY.
HERE ARE A FEW SAMPLE INDIVIDUAL
MAPS OF THIS SYSTEM IN SIX
INDIVIDUALS FROM OUR DATABASE
FOR A CONTRAST BETWEEN LANGUAGE
AND THE PERCEPTUAL CONTROL.
THESE MAPS ARE HIGHLY STABLE
WITHIN INDIVIDUALS.
I CAN BRING YOU INTO THE LAB
TODAY VERSUS 10 YEARS LATER,
THAT IS ABOUT THE SPAN OF MY
CAREER USING IMAGING TOOLS.
SO WE KNOW AT LEAST ACROSS THAT
SPAN OF TIME THESE ACTIVATIONS
ARE HIGHLY STABLE.
AS YOU CAN PROBABLY APPRECIATE
FROM JUST THESE SIX EXAMPLES
THEY ARE SOMEWHAT VARIABLE IN
THEIR PRECISE LOCATIONS ACROSS
PEOPLE AND THIS IS THE REASON I
HAVE BEEN ARGUING EVER SINCE THE
BEGINNING OF MY CAREER
TRAJECTORY FOR THE IMPORTANCE OF
IDENTIFYING THESE REGIONS AT THE
INDIVIDUAL LEVEL SO AS NOT TO
BLUR INDIVIDUAL BRAINS IN A
COMMON SPACE WHICH SUFFERS FROM
ALL SORTS OF SHORTCOMINGS,
SOMETIMES LEADS YOU TO INCORRECT
CONCLUSIONS.
I WILL BRIEFLY MENTION SINCE DAN
IN HIS INTRODUCTION MENTIONED
POLYGLOTS.
WE ARE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE
NATURE OF THIS VARIABILITY.
YOU CAN SEE IT IS NOT WHERE
EXACTLY THESE REGIONS ARE.
SOME OTHER PROPERTIES LIKE FOR
EXAMPLE HOW MUCH THESE REGIONS
WORK WHEN YOU ARE PROCESSING
LANGUAGE OR HERE I'M SHOWING YOU
THE LEFT HEMISPHERES OF THESE
PEOPLE, HOW MANY ACTIVITY IS
HAPPENING IN THE RIGHT
HEMISPHERE GIVEN THE LANGUAGE
SYSTEM SHOWS SOME ACTIVITY IN
THE RIGHT.
ALL OF THESE FEATURES, AGAIN,
ARE STABLE WITHIN PEOPLE AND
VARIABLE ACROSS PEOPLE.
WE AND OTHERS HAVE BEEN TRYING
TO ASK, DO THESE FEATURES RELATE
TO SOMETHING LIKE BEHAVIOR?
FOR EXAMPLE, DO US HAVING A
BIGGER LANGUAGE SYSTEM MAKE YOU
BETTER AT LANGUAGE?
OR WORSE?
THIS IS STILL VERY MUCH WORK IN
PROGRESS, BUT JUST A LITTLE
TIDBIT OF A FINDING.
WE HAVE RECENTLY EXPLORED BRAINS
OF INDIVIDUALS WITH WHAT YOU MAY
CALL LINGUISTIC TALENT.
NOT ALL MAY DESCRIBE THEMSELVES
AS SUCH.
POLYGLOTS OR HYPER-POLYGLOTS.
PEOPLE WHO HAVE SOME PROFICIENCY
IN EIGHT UP TO ABOUT 50
DIFFERENT LANGUAGES.
AND WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT IN
THESE POLYGLOT AND
HYPER-POLYGLOTS THESE LANGUAGE
AREAS TEND TO BE SMALLER AND
MORE FOCAL.
THIS IS STABLE WITHIN THESE
PEOPLE.
IF WE SCAN THEM AGAIN WE FIND
THE SAME THING.
I APPEARS THEY DON'T NEED TO USE
CORTICAL REAL ESTATE TO PROCESS
THE SAME INFORMATION
EFFICIENTLY.
LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT PROPERTIES
OF THIS LANGUAGE SYSTEM.
THESE REGIONS RESPOND ROBUSTLY
WHEN YOU UNDERSTAND LANGUAGE.
BY THE TIME IT GETS TO THESE
AREAS IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU
READ IT IN A TEXT OR HEARD IT
THROUGH YOUR AUDITORY SYSTEM.
IN THAT SYSTEM IS A MODEL.
SIMILARLY, IT RESPONDS WHEN YOU
PRODUCE LANGUAGE.
IN MY BRAIN THESE REGIONS ARE
WORKING HARD RIGHT NOW.
IT DOESN'T MATTER ULTIMATELY IF
YOU SEND TO YOUR ARCTICLATORS,
SPEAKING LIKE I AM NOW OR WRITE
OR TYPE IT UP.
THESE TWO PROPERTIES SHOULD
SUGGEST TO YOU, THEY DO TO US,
THE SYSTEM STORES LINGUISTIC
KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATIONS I HAVE
ALLUDED TO.
THESE REPRESENTATIONS CAN DECODE
LINGUISTIC MESSAGES WHEN WE HEAR
THEM FROM OTHERS AS WELL AS
ENCODE OUR THOUGHTS INTO
LINGUISTIC FORMATS.
TOP GRAPHICALLY SIMILAR
FUNCTIONS IN DIFFERENT
LANGUAGES.
WE HAVE TRYING TO INCREASE
LANGUAGE INVESTIGATION.
MOST COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE WORK
HAS BEEN DONE ON ENGLISH, GERMAN
AND DUTCH, BUT NOT A LOT OF TYPE
LOGICAL VAIRNT VARIABILITY THAT
CHARACTERIZES 7,000 LANGUAGES
SPOKEN ACROSS THE WORLD AND
SIGNED.
WE HAVE SHOWN ACROSS 50
LANGUAGES ACROSS 10 LANGUAGE
FAMILIES VARIOUS PROPERTIES OF
THIS SYSTEM LIKE NOT JUST ITS
BASIC LOCATION, BUT THE EXTENT
TO WHICH IT SPECIALIZED THE
LANGUAGE SEEMED TO BE STABLE
ACROSS THESE DIVERSE KINDS OF
SPEAKERS AND NOW WE ARE GETTING
TO THE POINT WHERE WE CAN START
ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT POTENTIAL
DIFFERENCES IN THE NEURAL
INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE FUNCTIONAL
PROPERTIES OF THESE DIFFERENT
LANGUAGES.
ANOTHER IMPORTANT PROPERTY OF
THIS SYSTEM, AS MANY OTHER BRAIN
SYSTEMS IT TURNS OUT NOW, THE
REGIONS OF THIS NETWORK ARE
STRONGLY FUNCTIONALLY
INTEGRATED.
STRONG ANATOMICAL CONNECTIONS
AND HIGH DEGREE OF
SYNCHRONIZATION SUGGESTING THEY
WORK TOGETHER IN THE SERVICE OF
A COMMON GOAL.
SOMETHING THAT GAVE RISE TO
COGNITIVE FUNCTIONING, WHEN
THESE REGIONS ARE DAMAGED.
IF YOU DAMAGE EXTENSIVE PARTS OF
THE LEFT HEMISPHERE IN
CHILDHOOD, NOTHING BAD HAPPENS.
IN FACT, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING
WITH SOMEONE WHO GREW UP WITHOUT
HER LEFT TEMPORAL LOBE AND
DIDN'T KNOW UNTIL SHE WAS 25
YEARS OLD.
YOUNG BRAINS ARE REDUNDANT AND
PLASTIC.
I CAN TALK MORE ABOUT THAT IN
THE QUESTION PERIOD.
I WILL TELL YOU ABOUT THE FIRST
KIND OF EVIDENCE.
THAT I'M GOING TO USE TO ARGUE
THAT LANGUAGE IS PRIMARILY USED
AS A COMMUNICATIVE TOOL AS
OPPOSED AS A TOOL FOR THOUGHT.
LET'S EXAMINE LANGUAGE AND
COMPLEX THOUGHT AND REASONING
AND THE RELATIONSHIP.
I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE
SPECTRUM OF ABILITIES HUMANS
HAVE.
QUITE A LOT OF THINGS WE CAN DO.
MANY OTHER ANIMALS CAN DO, SOME
ARE SPECIFIC TO HUMANS.
ASIDE FROM PERCEPTUAL
INTELLIGENCE TO ALLOW US TO
RECOGNIZE OBJECTS, FACES, OUR
MOTOR INTELLIGENCE TO ACT AND
INTERACT WITH THE WORLD WE CAN
DO THINGS LIKE NUMERICAL
PROCESSING LIKE MATH.
WE CAN ENGAGE IN LOGICAL
REASONING.
WE CAN ACQUIRE NEW SKILLS LIKE
COMPUTER CODING.
WE CAN CREATE AND APPRECIATE
MUSIC.
WE HAVE A HOST OF EXECUTIVE
ABILITIES, ATTENTION WORKING
MEMORY AND INHIBITORY CONTROL
AND PLANNING AND DECISION
MAKING.
USING THESE FLUID INTELLIGENCE
ABILITIES WE CAN SOLVE NOVEL
PROBLEMS ON ABSTRACT STIMULI.
WE CAN INTERACT COOPERATIVELY
WITH SPECIFICS AND FIGURE OUT
PROBLEMS, THINK WHAT SOMEONE
ELSE IS THINKING AND SOLVE
CONFLICTS LOCALLY AND A LARGE
SOCIETAL SCALE.
WE POSSESS A VERY RICH KNOWLEDGE
OF THE WORLD, OBJECTS AND
PROPERTIES OF EVENTS AND THEIR
TYPICAL ORDERINGS OF THE
PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS IN THE
WORLD AND WHAT KINDS OF THINGS
ARE POSSIBLE IN THE REAL WORLD
VERSUS OUR IMAGINATION.
WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
OUR LANGUAGE SYSTEM AND THESE
ABILITIES OVER THE YEARS MANY
HAVE ARGUED FOR OVERLAP BETWEEN
LANGUAGE PROCESSING AND ALMOST
ANY ASPECT OF COGNITION AND
PERCEPTION YOU CAN THINK OF.
I WILL ARGUE THAT LANGUAGE DOES
NOT SHARE RESOURCES WITH ANY OF
THESE ANBILITIES AND MANY OF THE
EARLY CLAIMS WERE BASED ON
SUBOPTIMAL ANALYTIC APPROACHES
THAT HAVE LED PEOPLE TO
INCORRECT CONCLUSIONS.
SO I'M GOING TO ARGUE THAT
LANGUAGE DOES NOT SUPPORT ANY
NON-LINGUISTIC ABILITIES.
TO PROBE THIS RELATIONSHIP,
BETWEEN ANY TWO COGNITIVE
ABILITIES, TWO PRIMARY METHODS
ARE USED.
FUNCTIONAL MRI IS GOOD FOR THAT
QUESTION.
IT IS NOT GOOD FOR MANY OTHER
QUESTIONS, BUT FOR THIS QUESTION
IT IS THE BEST TOOL.
I WILL PRESENT MRI EVIDENCE.
I'M PULLING DATA FROM A BUNCH OF
EXPERIMENTS IN THE LAB.
32 MRI EXPERIMENTS AGAINST
SEVERAL HUNDRED PARTICIPANTS AND
LANGUAGE PROCESSING AND DIVERSE
ABILITIES.
WE FOUND PEOPLE WITH LANGUAGE
REGIONS AND HAVE PEOPLE DO ONE
OR MORE NONLINGUISTIC TEST,
LISTEN TO MUSIC OR SOLVE MATH
PROBLEMS OR ENGAGE IN LOGICAL
REASONING AND SO ON.
IN DARK AND LIGHT GRAY, I'M
SHOWING YOU RESPONSES ESTIMATED
TO SENTENCE COME PREHENCE,
UNDERSTANDING LANGUAGE AND THE
GRAY ARE CONDITIONS LIKE
BACKWARDS SPEECH OR READING
NONWORDS OR PSEUDOWORDS.
BLORP OR FLICKIT, WHICH SOUND
LIKE LANGUAGE, BUT ARE NOT.
I WANT TO SHOW YOU A FIXATION
BASELINE WITHOUT ANY STIMULI.
IN DIFFERENT COLORS I WILL SHOW
YOU RESPONSES TO NONLINGUISTIC
STIMULI AND TASKS WHICH SPAN A
WIDE RANGE OF ABILITIES
INCLUDING COMPLEX REASONING.
SO I TRIED TO GROUP THEM HERE BY
KIND OF DOMAINS OR --
SUGGESTING THIS RESPONSE IN THE
LANGUAGE IS NOT FUNCTIONALLY
CRITICAL.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW ALL OF
THESE CONDITIONS ELICIT OTHER
RESPONSES IN OTHER PARTS OF THE
BRAIN, IN DIFFERENT AREAS THAT
ARE ACTIVATED BY LANGUAGE.
COMPLEMENTARY APPROACH FOR
ADDRESSING THIS QUESTION OF
WHETHER LANGUAGE SHARES WITH
OTHER MENTAL FUNCTIONS IS TO
EXAMINE COGNITIVE ABILITIES IN
INDIVIDUALS WHO LACK A PROPER
FUNCTIONING.
APASIA, FROM STROKE, THE
WHOLE -- CORTEX IS WIPED OUT AND
THEY HAVE SEVERE PROBLEMS IN
COME PREHENCE.
SOMETIMING UNDERSTANDING SIMPLE
COMMON WORDS ARE SPARED, BUT
THAT IS THE BEST CASE.
MY COLLEAGUE HAS BEEN STUDYING
THIS POPULATION FOR QUITE SOME
TIME TESTING ON A WIDE RANGE OF
NONLINGUISTIC ABILITIES,
INCLUDING WORK WE HAVE DONE
COLLABORATIVELY SHE HAS SHOWN IN
SITE OF THESE SEVERE DEFICITS,
THEY CAN SOLVE MATH PROBLEMS,
PLAY SUDOKO OR CHESS, SOLVE
PROBLEMS AND ENGAGE IN WORKING
MEMORY, COGNITIVE CONTROL TYPE
TASKS, APPRECIATE MUSIC AND
NAVIGATE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTS.
THEY HAVE AN INTACT
UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORLD.
SO THE ONLY THING THEY LACK IS
THEIR ABILITY TO EXTRACT
MEANINGFUL INFORMATION FROM
OTHER'S LINGUISTIC PRODUCTION.
THIS IS FMRI DATA.
HERE IS A NICE QUOTE FROM AN
INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS SUFFERING
FROM APHASIA.
THIS IS ONE PARTICULAR ONE
GERMAN PHILOSOPHY WHO DEVELOPED
APHASA DUE TO STROKE.
I SAW AND RECOGNIZED EVERYTHING.
I TRIED TO SPEAK BUT NO MATTER
HOW MUCH I FORCED ATTENTION AND
THOUGHTS TOGETHER, SHAPELESS
WORDS ENSUED RATHER THAN THE
ONES I WANTED.
I CONTENTED MYSELF I WOULD NOT
BE ABLE TO SPEAK OR WRITE FOR
THE DURATION OF MY LIFE BUT THE
PRINCIPLES AND DISPOSITIONS
KNOWN BY ME WILL ALWAYS REMAIN
THE SAME.
TO RESTATE, IT APPEARS THE
LANGUAGE SYSTEM DOES NOT SHARE
RESOURCES WITH A WIDE RANGE OF
ABILITIES, ANY ABILITIES WE HAVE
TESTED SO FAR.
HOWEVER, I WILL MENTION BRIEFLY,
I WON'T TALK ABOUT THIS HERE IN
THE INTEREST OF TIME, IN SPITE
OF A SHARP SEPARATION, THERE IS
GROWING EVIDENCE FOR A DEEP LINK
BETWEEN THE SYSTEM THAT SUPPORT
LANGUAGE AND THE SYSTEM THAT
SUPPORTS SOCIAL COGNITION.
THIS EVIDENCE COMES FROM
LINGUISTICS AND PSYCHO
LINGUISTIC AND BRAIN IMAGING AND
INVESTIGATIONS IN HUMAN AND PRI
MA
PRIMATE BRAINS.
I CAN ELABORATE IF THERE ARE
QUESTIONS AT THE END.
SPECIALIZATION IN NO WAY ENTAILS
INNATENESS.
THEY ARE SOMETIMES CONFLATED IN
PEOPLE'S THEORIZING, BUT WE HAVE
BEAUTIFUL EXAMPLES OF EMERGENT
SPECIALIZATION FOR EXAMPLE IN
OUR VISUAL CORTEX WHERE
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE LITERATE
HAVE A REGION HIGHLY SPECIALIZED
FOR PROCESSING LETTERS IN THIS
SCRIPT FAMILIAR TO THEM.
THE STORE OF LINGUISTIC
KNOWLEDGE IMPLIED I THINK THIS
SYSTEM EMERGES AND BECOMES
SPECIALIZED IN THE COURSE OF OUR
EXPERIENCE WITH LANGUAGE IN THE
FIRST FEW YEARS OF LIFE.
IT ALSO DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE
COMPUTATIONS THAT ARE
IMPLEMENTED IN THE CORTEX ARE
FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT THAN
THOSE THAT PROCESS IN DIFFERENT
AREAS OF THE BRAIN.
I SUSPECT MANY OF THE SAME
COMPUTATIONS FROM VISION TO
MOTOR CONTROL WHERE WE HAVE TO
RETRIEVE REPRESENTATIONS FROM
MEMORY, ENGAGE IN PREDICTIVE
PROCESSING, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT,
SIMPLE ELEMENTS INTEGRATED IN
MORE COMPLEX, THOSE SUPPORT
LANGUAGE PROCESSING.
# FINALLY, I HAVE HERE BEEN
TALKING ABOUT LOSING THE
LANGUAGE SYSTEM IN ADULTS WHEN
EVERYTHING IS
THERE IS SO MUCH OTHER STUFF
GOING ON, BUT IN THESE CASES ALL
THESE KIDS ARE LACKING FOR QUITE
A FEW YEARS OF THEIR LIFE IS
EXPOSURE TO LANGUAGE BECAUSE
THEY CAN'T HEAR SPOKEN LANGUAGE
AND NO ONE IS SIGNING TO THEM.
IT SEEMS THAT STRIKINGLY MOST
REASONING ABILITIES IN THESE
KIDS DEVELOP JUST FINE EXCEPT
ONE ASPECT OF THE LINK FOR
SOCIAL COG ANY TIGS I HAVE
ALLUDED TO.
NOW I'M GOING TO LOOK AT THE
SYSTEMS TO SEE IF COMPUTATIONS
MAY GIVE US CLUES AS TO THE
FUNCTION OF LANGUAGE.
I'M GOING TO SUGGEST TO YOU THAT
LANGUAGE HAS SOME PROPERTY THAT
MAKE IT ILL SUITED FOR COMPLEX
THOUGHT AND SOME PROPERTIES
WHICH MAKE IT WELL SUITED FOR
COMMUNICATION.
WHY IS THIS LANGUAGE SYSTEM NOT
GOOD FOR COMPLEX THOUGHT?
COMPLEX THOUGHT RELATES
DIFFERENT PROPOSITIONS TO
ANOTHER.
IT NATURALLY REQUIRES
INFORMATION ACROSS TIME SCALES.
THE LANGUAGE SYSTEM APPEARS TO
HAVE A RELATIVELY SHORT WHAT NOW
HAS BECOME AS A TEMPORAL
RECEPTIVE WINDOW.
IF YOU ARE UNFAMILIAR WITH THIS
CONCEPT, IT IS BASICALLY A
TEMPORAL ANALOG OF A SPATIAL
RECEPTIVE FIELD.
INDIVIDUAL CORTEX, PRIMARY
VISUAL AREAS IN THE BACK OF OUR
HEAD HAVE SMALL RECEPTIVE FIELDS
SO THEY PAY ATTENTION TO A TINY
FRACTION OF THE FIELD.
AS YOU MOVE ALONG THE STREAM,
THE SIZE OF THE SPATIAL FIELD
INCREASES.
SIMILARLY, DIFFERENT PARTS OF
OUR BRAIN VARY IN HOW MUCH OF
THE PROCEEDING CONTEXT, WHAT
HAPPENED JUST BEFORE THE TIME
WHEN YOU ARE PROCESSING THE
RELEVANT STIMULUS CAN AFFECT THE
PROCESSING OF THAT STIMULUS,
OKAY?
WITH RESPECT TO LANGUAGE, IT
SEEMS THAT THE PROCESSING WITHIN
THIS LANGUAGE SYSTEM THAT I HAVE
BEEN TALKING ABOUT, THE
SPECIALIZED LANGUAGE SYSTEM, IS
REALLY ONLY ON THE ORDER OF A
FEW WORDS, BETWEEN SIX AND 10
WORDS.
BEYOND THAT, THERE IS NO
SENSITIVITY TO INFORMATION IN
THE PRECEDING CONTEXT.
THERE IS A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT
SOURCES OF EVIDENCE I'M HAPPY TO
DISCUSS MORE.
OF COURSE, WE HAVE A SYSTEM IN
OUR BRAIN THAT KEEPS TRACK OF
MUCH LONGER TIME SCALES OF
INFORMATION.
A SYSTEM KNOWN AS THE DEFAULT
NETWORK OR DEFAULT MODE NETWORK
APPEARS TO HAVE LONG INTEGRATION
TIME WINDOWS, BUT THIS SYSTEM IS
NO LONGER SPECIFIC.
IT PROCESSES INFORMATION IN
STORIES AND DIALOGUE AND
NONVERBAL DIALOGUE LIKE SILENT
FILMS.
IT HAS TO INTERFACE.
THIS IS ONE OF THE DOWNSTREAM
TARGETS.
THE LANGUAGE SYSTEM APPEARS TO
KEEP TRACK OF RELATIVELY SHORT
CONTACTS WHICH MAKE IT NOT
SUITABLE FOR REASONING AND
THOUGHT.
IN THE THEORETICAL TRADITION
THAT HAS ADVOCATED THIS IDEA OF
LANGUAGE FOR THOUGHT VIEW, THE
FOCUS HAS BEEN ON SYNAPTIC
RULES.
LINGUISTIC SYNTAX HAS BEEN
REFERRED TO AS MERGE, CONSTRUED
AS AN OPERATION THAT CREATES NEW
REPRESENTATIONAL ELEMENTS FROM
SOME ALREADY CONSTRUCTED
ELEMENTS, Z AND X AND Y.
THE WHOLE REASONING IN THIS
TRADITION IS THIS OPERATION
EMERGED IN THE HUMAN BRAIN AND
ENABLED GREATER COMPLEXITY AND
THOUGHT AND ALLOWED US TO PUT
PROPOSITIONS INTO COMPLEX TRAINS
OF THOUGHT.
NOW, FOR THIS WHOLE ARGUMENT TO
WORK, THIS OPERATION HAS TO BE
HIGHLY ABSTRACT.
IT DOESN'T CARE WHAT THINGS IT
IS COMBINING.
BUT IT TURNS OUT THAT LINGUISTIC
SYNTAX IS ACTUALLY NOT ABSTRACT
AND INSTEAD INTIMATELY TIED TO
MEANINGS OF PARTICULAR WORDS
BEING COMBINED.
I DON'T HAVE TIME TO TALK TO YOU
ABOUT THE SPECIFIC EVIDENCE BUT
THERE ARE PUBLISHED PAPERS I'M
CITING HERE.
I'M HAPPY TO POINT YOU TO.
BUT BASICALLY WE AND MANY OTHERS
HAVE FOUND THERE IS NO SUCH
THING AS A SYNTACTIC HUB.
# TO THE EXTENT THIS WHOLE
SYSTEM IS SENSITIVE TO STRUCTURE
BECAUSE THAT IS A BIG PART OF
REGULARITY IN THE INPUT, BUT ANY
BIT OF THAT SYSTEM, BE THE BRAIN
REGION OR POPULATION OF CELLS WE
CAN PROBE WITH INTERCRANIAL
RECORDINGS, ANYTHING SHOWS
SENSITIVITY TO STRUCTURE, A LIST
OF UNCONNECTED WORDS OR
SENSITIVITY TO GRAMMATICAL
VIOLATIONS WILL BE DEEPLY
MEANINGFUL TO INDIVIDUAL WORDS,
RESPONDING MORE TO TABLE THAN
BLANKET.
I'M GOING TO SKIP OVER HERE A
TINY LITTLE BIT.
THIS GENERAL STRONG INTEGRATION
BETWEEN STRUCTURE AND MEANING
ALIGNS WITH ACCUMULATING
EVIDENCE AGAINST A GENERAL LINK
BETWEEN MEMORY AND COMPUTATION.
IT SEEMS THE VERY SAME CIRCUITS
THAT STORE INFORMATION ARE ALSO
USED TO PROCESS THAT
INFORMATION.
THESE ARGUMENTS COME FROM
NEUROBIOLOGY WHERE NO KNOWN
ORGANISMS HAVE CELLS THAT JUST
STORE INFORMATION AS WELL AS
PERFORM COMPUTATION AND WHAT WE
LEARNED FROM COMPUTER SCIENCE
WHERE MEMORY ALLOWS FOR
EFFICIENT REUSE OF COMPUTATIONS
AGAINST MEMORIZATION.
INSTEAD OF INPUTTING EVERYTHING
ON THE FLY, YOU CAN STORE
SEQUENCES OF FUNCTION CALLS AND
THAT REUSE IS HIGHLY EFFICIENT
AND NOW VERY ACTIVELY BEING USED
IN A LOT OF DEEP LEARNING
SYSTEMS.
ALL RIGHT.
SO, IF LANGUAGE DOESN'T RELY ON
AN ABSTRACT OPERATION THAT CAN
BE APPLIED TO ANY KIND OF
REPRESENTATIONS COMBINED WITH
ENGAGING IN COMPLEX THOUGHT DOES
NOT ACTIVATE THE LANGUAGE
NETWORK AND COMPLEX REASONING
APPEARS POSSIBLE EVEN WHEN THE
LANGUAGE SYSTEM IS SEVERELY
DAMAGED, IT IS NOT CLEAR HOW
LANGUAGE GAVE RISE TO COMPLEX
THOUGHT AND REASONING.
I WILL BRIEFLY MENTION IN THE
REMAINING FEW MINUTES TWO
PROPERTIES OF LANGUAGE THAT MAKE
IT WELL SUITED FOR
COMMUNICATION.
THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE THAT
NATURAL LANGUAGES ARE EFFICIENT
FOR INFORMATION TRANSFER.
THIS COMES FROM SOUND SYSTEM TO
VOCABULARIES TO GRAMMARS.
ALL OF WHICH APPEAR TO BE
STRONGLY SHAPED BY COMMUNICATIVE
PRESSURES LEADING TO A
LINGUISTIC CODE THAT IS SHORT,
ON AVERAGE, MAKING IT EASY TO
PRODUCE ON THE OTHER HAND
CONTEXTUALLY DISAMBIGUATED AND
REDUNDANT AND ROBUST TO NOISE.
IT IS NOT CLEAR WHY IT WOULD
EXHIBIT THESE CHARACTERISTICS.
YOU CAN -- AND SOME PEOPLE HAVE
ARGUED MAYBE IT DEVELOPED FOR
THOUGHT BUT ACQUIRED THESE
CHARACTERISTICS ALONG THE WAY
DUE TO SECONDARY ROLE.
THE LANGUAGE OF THOUGHT BECOMES
FALSIFIABLE AND SCIENTIFICALLY
NOT INTERESTING.
THE SECOND PROPERTY OF LANGUAGE
THAT ONLY MAKES SENSE IN LIGHT
OF THINKING WHAT IS A
COMMUNICATIVE TOOL IS LANGUAGE
PROCESSING APPEARS TO BE
FUNDAMENTALLY PREDICTIVE.
PREDICTION IN LANGUAGE AS
ANOTHER DOMAIN MAKES SENSE FROM
A COMPREHENDER WHO IS TRYING TO
INTEND THE MEANING FROM
LINGUISTIC SIGNAL AND ENGAGING
IN PROCESSING MAKES IT EASIER
BECAUSE ELEMENTS ARE
PREACTIVATED.
IT IS NOT CLEAR WHY LANGUAGE
PROCESSING WOULD BECOME
PREDICTIVE IF LANGUAGE WAS
PRIMARILY AN INTERNAL SYSTEM OF
THOUGHT.
I HAVE TWO OR THREE MINUTES LEFT
HERE, SO I WILL MENTION, ONE
VERY COOL SOURCE OF EVIDENCE
WHICH COMES FROM RECENT EFFORTS
TO RELATE DEEP LEARNING
ARCHITECTURES TO HUMAN
REPRESENTATIONS, NEURAL
REPRESENTATIONS DURING LANGUAGE
PROCESSING.
SO YOU ALL KNOW LANGUAGE HAS
BEEN LONG ARGUED TO BE ONE OF
THE MOST DIFFICULT DOMAINS TO
STUDY BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE
ANIMAL MODELS SO WE ARE LIMITED
IN THE THINGS WE CAN DO.
ONE BARRIER, THE LACK OF
COMPUTATIONALLY EXPLICIT
ACCOUNTS OF LANGUAGE
UNDERSTANDING HAS BEEN LIFTED.
THIS HAPPENS IN THE LAST FIVE,
SIX YEARS.
MACHINE LEARNING ADVANCES, REAL
ENGINEERING BREAK THROUGHS
HAPPEN IN ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE WHERE NOW WE HAVE
DEEP LEARNING MODELS INCLUDING
FAMOUSLY SO CALLED TRANSFORMER
ARCHITECTURES, GP T 2, WHICH DO
WELL ON A LOT OF SOPHISTICATED
LANGUAGE TASKS.
ALL OF THESE SUCCESSFUL MODELS
ARE TRAINED ON NEXT WORD
PREDICTION LEADS TO SUGGEST THAT
THIS KIND OF TRAINING LEADS TO
REPRESENTATIONS THAT APPROXIMATE
MEANING WELL ENOUGH TO PERFORM
WELL ON THESE TASKS LIKE
QUESTION ANSWERING OR GENERATING
FREE FORM TEXT OR TRANSLATING
BETWEEN LANGUAGES.
PRESUMABLY THIS IS BECAUSE IN
ORDER TO SUCCESSFULLY PREDICT
THE NEXT WORD YOU NEED TO
IMPLICITLY PAY ATTENTION TO
IRREGULARITIES IN THE SIGNAL.
WHAT WE DID RECENTLY IS TRY TO
SEE IF MODELS THAT ARE BETTER AT
THIS COMPUTATIONAL OBJECTIVE OF
PREDICTING THE NEXT WORD ARE
BETTER AT CAPTURING HUMAN
LANGUAGE PROCESSING IN THE
BRAIN.
WE TOOK OVER 40 STATE OF THE ART
LANGUAGE MODELS AND FITTED THEM
AGAINST THREE NEURAL HUMAN DATA
SETS.
BY PITTED, THE MOST STRAIGHT
FORWARD THING YOU CAN DO, YOU
HAVE RECORDINGS OF PEOPLE
PROCESSING LANGUAGE STIMULI.
YOU FEED THEM TO THE DIFFERENT
LANGUAGE MODELS AND THEN YOU
EXTRACT SOME SET OF UNIT WEIGHTS
FROM THOSE MODELS.
HAVING THAT, YOU TRAIN A LINEAR
REGRESSION FROM THE UNIT WEIGHTS
TO THE NEURAL.
YOU HAVE INTRACRANIAL RECORDINGS
AND FUNCTIONAL MRI.
THAT LINEAR MODEL CAN BE TESTED
ON SOME LEFT OUT HUMAN NEURAL
DATA TO SEE HOW WELL IT PREDICTS
RESPONSES TO UNSEEN STIMULI.
THIS IS A GRAPH SHOWING
PERFORMANCE OF THESE 43 MODELS
ON CAPTURING SOMETHING ABOUT
HUMAN NEURAL RESPONSES.
AND SOME OF THEM ALREADY DO
REALLY WELL.
THERE IS QUITE A LOT OF
VARIANCE, WHICH MEANS THERE IS A
LOT OF INTERESTING THINGS TO
EXPLORE, LIKE WHY ARE SOME
MODELS BETTER THAN OTHERS, BUT
CRITICALLY, THERE IS A STRONG
RELATIONSHIP AND I'M WRAPPING
UP, I PROMISE.
ONE MINUTE.
THAT MODELS THAT DO BETTER ON
NEXT WORD PREDICTION, HERE LOWER
NUMBERS ON THE X AXIS MEAN BEING
ABLE TO BETTER PREDICT THE NEXT
WORD IN NORMATIVE TASK THE
MODELS ARE TRAINED AND TESTED ON
AND HOW WELL THEY CAPTURE HUMAN
NEURAL RESPONSES SUGGESTING THAT
MAYBE -- MAYBE, I'M SKIPPING
OVER SOME STUFF, OPTIMIZING FOR
PREDICTIVE REPRESENTATIONS IS A
CRITICAL OBJECTIVE FOR
BIOLOGICAL AND SYLLABLE LANGUAGE
NETWORKS.
PERFORMANCE IN OTHER LANGUAGE
TASKS LIKE ASK A MODEL TO JUDGE
HOW SIMILAR TWO SENTENCES ARE IN
MEANING, PERFORMANCE ON THOSE
TASKS DOES NOT PREDICT HOW WELL
A MODEL MATCHES A BRAIN.
TO GO BACK TO THE QUESTION I
POSTED IN THE BEGINNING.
WHAT IS THE PRIMARY FUNCTION OF
LANGUAGE, TO THINK MORE COMPLEX
THOUGHTS OR SHARE THOUGHTS WITH
OTHERS?
THE LANGUAGE SYSTEM IS STRONGLY
SEGREGATED FROM THE REST OF THE
BRAIN AND SPECIALIZED FOR
LANGUAGE PROCESSING.
I ALLUDED TO THE BODY OF
EVIDENCE GROWING SUKTING THERE
IS A DEEP CONNECTION BETWEEN
LANGUAGE SYSTEM AND SOCIAL
COGNITIVE SYSTEM.
I FURTHER SHOW YOU LANGUAGE HAS
SOME PROPERTIES THAT MAKE IT NOT
WELL SUITED FOR COMPLEX THOUGHT
AND SOME PROPERTIES INCLUDING
PREDICTIVE CODING THAT MAKE IT
WELL SUITED FOR COMMUNICATION.
AND I THINK BOTH OF THESE LINES
OF EVIDENCE SUPPORT THE
COMMUNICATIVE FUNCTION OF
LANGUAGE AND SUGGEST THAT THE
IDEA THAT LANGUAGE EVOLVED FOR
MORE COMPLEXITY IN THOUGHT IS
UNLIKELY.
I'M GOING TO STOP HERE AND THANK
YOU TO ALL OF MY FUNDING AGENTS
AND COLLABORATORS.
THANK YOU.
>> EV, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
THAT REALLY FASCINATING TALK.
IT CERTAINLY DOES MAKE US THINK
BACK A FEW TENS OF THOUSANDS OF
YEARS WITH REGARD TO HOW ALL OF
THESE THINGS EVOLVED AND
CERTAINLY I'M SURE WE WILL HAVE
SOME REALLY INTERESTING
QUESTIONS TO PONDER AT THE END.
BUT BEFORE WE START PONDERING
THOSE QUESTIONS, USING LANGUAGE,
AS A TOOL AT LEAST TO TALK ABOUT
IT.
WE HAVE OUR SECOND SPEAKER WHO
IS GOING TO REGALE US WITH
ANOTHER ASPECT OF THIS TOPIC.
NADIA, TAKE IT AWAY.
>> EVELINA, I WANT TO THANK YOU
FOR A WONDERFUL, WONDERFUL TALK.
IT REMINDED ME A LOT OF THE
TIMES WHEN I WAS IN GRADUATE
SCHOOL AND REALLY IS ONE OF THE
REASONS WHY I WENT TO MEDICAL
SCHOOL AFTER GETTING THE PH.D.
AND IT IS THIS ISSUE OF MINDS
AND BRAINS AND HOW THEY CREATE
LANGUAGE THAT WAS REALLY THE
IMPETUS FOR WHY I WENT TO
MEDICAL SCHOOL.
WHEN I WAS IN GRADUATE SCHOOL,
THERE WAS A GREAT DEAL OF TO DO
ABOUT MIND AND BRAIN.
AND THE REASON I WAS ACTUALLY
INTERESTED IN LANGUAGE AND
SPEECH IS REALLY BECAUSE IT
REALLY TOUCHES ON NEARLY EVERY
ASPECT OF OUR INTERACTIONS WITH
EACH OTHER AND ALSO WITH THE
MEDICAL SPECTRUM.
WE SEE IT IN AUTISM.
IT IS ONE OF THE PRODROMAL
PRESENTATIONS OF CHILDREN WHO
HAVE AUTISM.
WE SEE THAT, AS YOU MENTIONED IN
YOUR TALK, PATIENTS WHO HAVE
STROKES, WHO PRESENT WITH
LANGUAGE DEFICITS.
WE ALSO SEE IT NEURODEGENERATIVE
DISEASES LIKE PARKINSON'S
DISEASE.
WE SEE IT IN NORMAL AGING.
THERE ARE SPECIFIC CHANGES THAT
OCCUR AS SOMEONE AGES WHICH ARE
DIFFERENT THAN NEURODEGENERATIVE
DISEASES SUCH AS ALZHEIMER'S
DISEASE, FRONTAL TEMPORAL DMEN
YEAH AND MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS AND
PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEUROPSYCHIATRIC
DISORDERS PATIENTS WITH AUDITORY
HALLUCINATIONS SUCH AS SKRIZ --
SCHIZOPHRENIA.
I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WOULD
MAKE AN IMPACT TO IMPROVE,
PRESERVE OR RESTORE THAT ABILITY
TO COMMUNICATE IN PATIENTS WHO
HAVE THESE TYPES OF DISEASES.
AND WHEN I WAS IN GRADUATE
SCHOOL, THE MAIN ISSUE ABOUT
MIND VERSUS BRAIN WAS REALLY A
FUNDAMENTAL ONE.
YOU MENTIONED NOAM CHOMSKY.
I HAPPENED TO HAVE GONE TO A
SCHOOL THAT WAS VERY INFLUENCED,
AT LEAST THE TIME I WAS THERE,
VERY INFLUENCED ABOUT THE WORK
OF NOAM CHOMSKY, WHICH WAS
BASICALLY ON GENERATIVE
LINGUISTICS.
IT WAS THEORETICAL LINGUISTICS.
AND THE QUESTION WAS ARE WE
REALLY INTERESTED IN THE HUMAN
MIND?
ARE WE INTERESTED IN LANGUAGE
BECAUSE WE ARE INTERESTED IN THE
ORGANIZATION OF THE HUMAN MIND
OR ARE WE INTERESTED IN THE
HUMAN BRAIN?
AND AT THE TIME, IT WAS REALLY,
WE ARE INTERESTED IN THE HUMAN
MIND.
AND THE STRUCTURE OF THE
LANGUAGES, OF HUMAN LANGUAGES IN
GENERAL WAS A REFLECTION OF THE
ORGANIZATION OF THE MIND AND NOT
THAT OF THE BRAIN.
AND THEY OFTEN USED THE ANALOGY
OF A COMPUTER TO MAKE THIS
DISTINCTION.
WE'RE INTERESTED IN THE
SOFTWARE, THE PROGRAMMING OF THE
COMPUTER, WE REALLY DON'T NEED
TO KNOW ABOUT THE 1s AND 0s OF
THE HARDWARE TO UNDERSTAND HOW
THE SOFTWARE WORKS.
SO IT WAS REALLY -- WE WERE
REALLY INTERESTED IN THE HUMAN
MIND.
THAT IS TRUE.
THAT CAN BE TRUE, BUT IT DEPENDS
ON WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.
GIVEN WHAT I WANTED TO DO IS NOT
ONLY DIAGNOSE, BUT MAYBE
INTERVENE TO IMPROVE THE ABILITY
AND PRESERVE THE ABILITY OF
HUMAN BEINGS TO INTERACT IN A
MEANINGFUL SOCIAL WAY WITH EACH
OTHER, UNDERSTANDING HOW THIS
CAME ABOUT IN THE HUMAN BRAIN OR
WHERE -- WHAT WAS THE UNDERLYING
NETWORKS AND STRUCTURES AND HOW
THIS CAME ABOUT WAS FUNDAMENTAL
FOR ME.
THAT IS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE
REASONS WHY I ENDED UP GOING TO
MEDICAL SCHOOL AFTER FINISHING A
LOT OF THE GRADUATE WORK.
SO AS I MENTIONED, THIS WAS A
FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE.
AND AT THE TIME, THERE WERE MANY
PEOPLE WHO FELT THE BRAIN HAD
NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT THE
STRUCTURE OF THE HUMAN MIND.
I'M GOING TO PRESENT SOME
EXPERIMENTS, SOME OF MY OWN
EXPERIMENTS, SOME OTHER
EXPERIMENTS PERFORMED BY OTHER
COLLEAGUES, THAT TELLS US THAT
THE TWO ARE ACTUALLY
COMPLEMENTARY AND ONE SETS UP
THE THEORETICAL BASIS UPON WHICH
ONE CAN PERFORM YOUR
EXPERIMENTS, BUT THE BIOLOGY
MUST CONSTRAIN THAT THEORY IN
ORDER FOR ONE TO MAKE SENSE OF
IT, ESPECIALLY GIVEN WHAT IT WAS
THAT I WANTED TO DO.
AS EVELINA PRESENTED, HE TALKED
ABOUT GLOBAL APHASIA.
THERE ARE MANY, MANY TIMES OF
APHASIA, ANOMIC, CONDUCTION,
TRANSCORTICAL, WERNICKE.
WE TALK ABOUT TWO TIMES.
BROCA ON THE ONE HAND AND
WERNICKE'S IN THE OTHER.
BROCA IN THE INFERIOR LEFT
FRONTAL CORTEX AND PEOPLE WHO
HAVE DAMAGE IN THAT AREA SPEAK
IN EFFORTFUL TYPE OF SPEECH AND
THE SECOND IS WERNICKE, THE
DAMAGE IS LOCATED MORE
POSTERIORLY AND PATIENTS PRESENT
WITH FLUID TYPE SPEECH, BUT
SPEECH THAT DOESN'T REALLY MAKE
THAT MUCH SENSE.
FULL OF WORDS THAT ARE MADE UP,
KNOWN AS NEOLIGISMS.
THERE ARE NOT JUST TWO TYPES OF
APHASIA, BUT MANY, MANY TIMES
AND THEY HAVE BEEN WELL STUDIED
IN THE APHASIAC COMMUNITY, I
SHOULDN'T SAY COMMUNITY, BUT
PEOPLE WHO STUDY APHASIA, THESE
HAVE BEEN VERY, VERY WELL
DOCUMENTED AND CATEGORIZED AND
SO ON AND SO FORTH.
ONE OF THE THINGS IS WE TALK
OFTEN ABOUT LANGUAGES BEING
PREDOMINANTLY A CORTICAL
PHENOMENON.
THESE HAVE BEEN DOCUMENTED IN
ALL TYPES OF APHASIA.
WE TALK ABOUT LANGUAGE AS A
CORTICAL PHENOMENON, BUT THERE
ARE ALSO SUB CORTICAL PHENOMENA,
SUB CORTICAL APHASIAS AS WELL.
PATIENTS WITH PARKINSON'S
DISEASE NOT ONLY PRESENT WITH A
KIND OF DISARTHRIC, EFFORTFUL
TYPE OF SPEECH, BUT DIFFICULTIES
UNDERSTANDING CERTAIN TYPES OF
ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE.
SO THERE IS A CONTRIBUTION OF
THE SUB CORTEX, WHICH I DON'T
WANT TO LEAVE OUT, BUT IT IS
SOMETHING THAT I DO TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION WHEN WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT THE KIND OF
NETWORKS THAT SUBSERVE LANGUAGE.
SO I JUST MENTION THIS TO SAY
THAT WE ARE NOT ONLY TALKING
ABOUT CORTICAL PHENOMENA, BUT
SUBCORTICAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO
LANGUAGE WHICH I WILL NOT FOCUS
ON, BUT I JUST WANT YOU TO KEEP
THAT IN THE BACK OF YOUR MIND.
SO LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
BROCA'S AREA.
WE TALK ABOUT TWO AREAS,
BROCA'S, ABOUT SPEECH PLANNING
IT IS SAID AND PATIENTS WHO HAVE
DAMAGE THERE KIND OF PRESENT
WITH A TYPE OF GRAMATIC,
EFFORTFUL TELEGRAPHIC TYPE OF
SPEECH AND WE HAVE OTHER
PATIENTS WITH KIND OF FLUENT
NEOLOGISTIC TYPE OF AREA.
WHAT DOES BROCA'S AREA DO?
I'M GOING TO TRY TO CONVINCE YOU
THAT IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT
EFFORT.
THE WAY IN WHICH I'M GOING TO DO
THAT IS REALLY TO LOOK AT THE
PERFORMANCE OF SOME PATIENTS WHO
HAVE DAMAGE IN THIS AREA AND
WERE ASKED TO REPEAT CERTAIN
TYPES OF WORDS.
NOW, WE HAVE USED A CERTAIN --
WE HAVE USED SPECIFIC TYPES OF
LANGUAGES TO TRY TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF ASPECTS OF THE THE
LANGUAGE IN ORDER TO SHOW THE
UNDERLYING PHENOMENON.
AND THIS EXPERIMENT HAPPENED TO
BE FRENCH SPEAKING PATIENTS
BECAUSE WE WANTED TO LOOK AT THE
PRONUNCIATION OF CERTAIN TYPES
OF WORDS.
PATIENTS WHO HAVE BROCA'S
APHASIA HAVE DIFFICULTY
PRONOUNCING CERTAIN TYPES OF
WORDS, NOT ALL TYPES OF WORDS,
BUT SPECIFICALLY CERTAIN TYPES
OF WORDS.
IF BROCA'S AREA IS ABOUT THE
EFFORT OR ARTICULATION OF
SPEECH, WHY SHOULD PATIENTS WHO
HAVE DAMAGE IN THAT AREA HAVE
MORE DIFFICULTY CREATING SOME
TYPE OF WORDS OVER OTHER TYPE OF
WORDS.
THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
WE HAD FRENCH-SPEAKING PATIENTS
REPEAT CERTAIN TYPES OF WORDS
THAT WERE VERY SIMILAR IN THE
STRUCTURE OF THESE WORDS.
SO WE HAVE WORDS LIKE LIQUID AND
[ FRENCH WORD ]
THESE WORDS, SOME PRESENT AS
CONTENT WORD, LIQUID IS A
CONTENT WORD AND OTHERS SEEM TO
BE MUCH MORE GRAMMATICAL IN
THEIR ORIGIN AND THEIR FUNCTION.
AND WE SIMPLY HAD THEM REPEAT
THE WORDS.
AND WE FOUND THAT THESE PATIENTS
HAD FAR MORE DIFFICULTIES, THEY
MADE MANY MORE TYPES OF ERRORS,
MANY TYPES OF PHONOLOGICAL
MISTAKES AND MUCH MORE
DIFFICULT, IT WAS MUCH MORE
DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO AR TAKE
LATE THESE WORDS THAT SEEM TO
HAVE THESE GRAMMATICAL FUNCTIONS
EVEN THOUGH THE WORDS WERE
NEARLY IDENTICAL IN TERMS OF THE
PHONOLOGICAL MAKEUP.
THERE IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT
FROM GRAMMATICAL WORDS AND WHEN
WE ASKED THEM TO SAY THE WORDS
IN SENTENCES, THE PERCENTAGE OF
ERRORS TRIPLED EVEN.
SO THERE IS SOMETHING A LITTLE
UNUSUAL AND WE CAN'T SIMPLY SAY
THAT BROCA'S AREA IS JUST ABOUT
SPEECH PLANNING AND
ARTICULATION.
SO WHAT IS IT THAT WE -- WHAT IS
IT THAT WE ARE ABLE TO FIND?
SO THERE WAS INITIATELY A
HYPOTHESIS THAT SAID THAT THERE
WERE TWO CLASSES OF WORDS AND
THAT THESE WORDS WERE PROCESSED
IN VERY DIFFERENT WAYS.
IT WAS CALLED THE DUAL THEORY OF
WORD PROCESSING.
AND WE ARE FOUND THAT THERE WAS
PROBABLY ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO
SUGGEST THAT AT LEAST IN THE
BRAIN THESE TWO TYPES OF WORDS
WERE PROCESSED VIA DIFFERENT
MECHANISMS BECAUSE THEY COULD BE
DAMAGED DIFFERENTLY.
WITH DIFFERENT DEGREES OF
EFFORT.
THERE ARE SOME INVESTIGATIONS
THAT REALLY LOOKED AT NEURAL
RECEPTORS IN THESE AREAS BECAUSE
SOMETIMES WHEN WE LOOKED T THE
SITE OF ARCHITECTONIC OF BRAIN
REGIONS ARE NOT ABLE TO
DIFFERENTIATE ONE LEVEL OF
CORTEX TO THE NEXT.
SO WHAT DEFINES BROCA'S AREA?
AND SO THEY ACTUALLY DID A
NEURORECEPTOR STUDY AND FOUND
THERE WERE SIMILARITIES IN N1
RECEPTORS LOCATED IN BROCA'S
AREA AS WELL AS ANTERIOR
SINGULATE AND BASAL GANGLIA.
AND WE KNOW THAT AN TIER YEAH
SINGULATE AND BASAL GANGLIA ARE
INVOLVED IN ASPECTS OF WORD
PROCESSING.
AND SO WE THOUGHT THAT WELL, IF
THIS IS TRUE, THEN PERHAPS THIS
MIGHT BE AN EXPLANATION FOR WHY
IT IS THAT THESE PATIENTS WOULD
HAVE MORE DIFFICULTY WHEN THEY
HAD TO ARTICULATE THE WORDS IN
SENTENCES AS OPPOSED TO IN
ISOLATION.
BECAUSE THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE
AT THIS INTENTIONAL LEVEL THAT
WAS A PROBLEM FOR THEM.
WE USED TO THINK WE COULD USE
PROBABLISTIC MODELS TO PREDICT
WHAT WOULD BE THE NEXT WORD, BUT
THOSE MODELS WOULDN'T REALLY
EXPLAIN WHY IT IS AND PERHAPS
EVELINA CAN SHARE WITH ME SOME
OF HER IDEAS ON THAT, WHY IT
WOULD BE THAT AT THE SENTENCE
LEVEL THESE WORDS, ALTHOUGH THEY
HAD DIFFICULTIES IN ISOLATION,
THEY HAD MORE DIFFICULTS AT
THE -- AREA WHEN MORE TOOLS CAN
BE BROUGHT TO BEAR TO SOLVE SOME
OF THE PREDICTIVE AREAS,
PREDICTIVE PHENOMENA.
SO WE THOUGHT THAT SINCE WE KNOW
THAT AREAS OF THE BRAIN, THE
ANTERIOR CINGULATE BASAL GANGLIA
AND NEURORECEPTORS IN THIS AREA
FOUND IN BROCA'S AREA, PERHAPS
THERE IS AN ATTENTIVE COMPONENT
THAT IS ALSO INVOLVED.
AND THAT THOSE AREAS ARE
ACTUALLY NOT AVAILABLE TO THESE
PATIENTS TO BE ABLE TO
ARTICULATE THIS WHEN THESE WORDS
THAT THEY ARE ALREADY HAVING
DIFFICULT WITH IN ISOLATION ARE
ASKED TO THEN BE PUT WITHIN THE
CENTENTIAL STRUCTURE.
WE ASKED NORMAL HEALTHY
INDIVIDUALS TO LISTEN TO SOME
WORDS THAT HAVE BEEN MANIPULATED
ACUSICALLY, SUCH THAT WE ARE
MAKING THOSE WORDS A LITTLE MORE
DIFFICULT TO HAVE TO PROCESS.
AND IF YOU ASK PATIENTS TO OR
SUBJECTS TO LISTEN TO THESE
KINDS OF WORDS PASSIVELY, WE
REALLY DON'T SEE ACTIVATION OF
BROCA'S AREA.
NOR THE THALAMUS, BUT WHEN WE
ASKED THEM TO MAKE A DECISION ON
THESE SUBTLY MANIPULATED
ACOUSTIC PHENOMENA, NOW WE SEE
ACTIVATION WITHIN BROCA'S AREA.
WE SEE IT WITHIN THE ANTERIOR
CINGULATE AND THE THALAMUS.
THERE IS AN ABILITY TO PROCESS
SOME OF THESE DATA AND THAT THE
PURPOSE AREA IS ACTIVATED AND --
BROCA'S AREA IS ACTIVATED TO
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL RESOURCE FOR
YOU TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THOSE
KINDS OF DECISIONS.
IN THE PATIENTS WITH BROCA'S
APHASIA, THAT AREA IS DAMAGED
AND, THEREFORE, UNABLE TO
RECRUIT THOSE ADDITIONAL
RESOURCES THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR
YOU TO PRESENT THESE LETTERS,
THESE WORDS WHEN INCREASED
RESOURCES ARE REQUIRED SUCH AS
IN SENTENCE COME PREHENCE, EVEN
THOUGH ONE WOULD PREDICT, ONE
WOULD EXPECT USING PREDICTIVE
MODELS WOULD ACTUALLY HELP
SUBJECTS TO HAVE DECREASED AREAS
OF DECREASED ERRORS OF
PRONUNCIATION ERRORS THAN WE
ACTUALLY SEE.
THIS IS ACTUALLY WHAT WE DO SEE
IN SUBJECTS NORMAL INDIVIDUAL
SUBJECTS WERE ASKED TO LISTEN TO
NATURAL LANGUAGE.
IT IS THOUGHT THAT BECAUSE OF
THE PREDICTIVE ABILITY OF THE
LANGUAGE STRUCTURE, THESE
PATIENTS, WHEN YOU ARE LISTENING
TO NATURAL SPEECH, REALLY DON'T
RECRUIT AREAS OF BROCA'S AREA.
IT IS ONLY WHEN THE BROADBAND IS
NARROWED AND IT BECOMES MUCH
MORE EFFORTFUL WE SEE THAT KIND
OF ACTIVATION.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD HAVE
PREDICTED WOULD HAVE BEEN THE
CASE FOR THE BROCA'S APHASICS,
USING NATURAL LANGUAGE AND
MODELS WOULD HAVE HELPED THEM
PRODUCE THESE WORDS WITH LESS
DIFFICULTY, BUT WE FOUND THAT
WAS ACTUALLY NOT THE CASE BUT IT
IS THE OPPOSITE AND WE THINK
THERE HAS TO BE AN AREA IN
CONDITIONS OF INCREASED CORTICAL
DEMAND OR RESOURCE DEMAND.
THEY ARE UNABLE TO RECRUIT THAT
INTENTIONAL RESOURCE TO BE ABLE
TO PRODUCE THAT AND THEREFORE
THE PERFORMANCE DECREASES.
SO AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, WHEN I
WAS IN GRADUATE SCHOOL,
UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES ABOUT MIND
AND BRAIN WAS SUCH THAT IT WAS
SAID THAT THE BRAIN REALLY HAD
NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT THE
STRUCTURE OF THE HUMAN MIND.
BUT WE ACTUALLY ARE FINDING THAT
BY LOOKING AT SOME PATIENT DATA
THAT THE BRAIN CAN REVEAL TO US
THAT THE MIND MUST BE STRUCTURED
IN PARTICULAR WAYS SO IT CAN
CONSTRAIN SOME OF THE THEORIES
THAT WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IN
UNDERSTANDING THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE MIND AND THE BRAIN
AND LANGUAGE AND BRAIN.
SO AS I MENTIONED, THE THEORY IS
REALLY A FRAMEWORK OF
INVESTIGATION, BUT MUST BE
CONSTRAINED BY THE BIOLOGY.
AND THAT AT LEAST FOR THESE
PATIENTS, DAMAGE TO A PARTICULAR
PART OF THE BRAIN CAN TELL US
SOMETHING ABOUT HOW THE LEXICON
IS ORGANIZED.
AND IT HAS TO AT LEAST -- IT
DOESN'T TREAT ALL WORDS EXACTLY
THE SAME WAY.
THEY HAVE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF
GRAMMATICAL TAG, IT SEEMS.
AND THAT THESE TAGS, WHEN THEY
ARE GOING TO BE PLACED WITHIN A
SENTENCE, REQUIRE THE
RECRUITMENT OF CORTICAL AND
SUBCORTICAL INTENTIONAL NETWORKS
IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO PROCESS
LARGER INFORMATION.
OFTEN WE SAY OR SEE IN THE
LITERATURE MANY DIAGRAMS THAT
SHOW ACTIVATION OF POSTERIOR
TEMPORAL BROCA'S AREA, MIDDLE
TEMPORAL GIRUS AND CORTEX, I
WANT TO REMIND YOU LANGUAGE THAT
IS NOT A CORTICAL PHENOMENON,
BUT RECRUITS DEEPER SUBCORTICAL
PHENOMENON AND WE HAVE TO TAKE
THOSE PHENOMENA INTO ACCOUNT
WHEN TRYING TO COME TO EXPLAIN
THE KIND OF LANGUAGE PHENOMENA
THAT WE WANT.
AND WE WILL BE USING IN THIS NEW
LAB THAT WE -- HAS RECENTLY BEEN
CREATED AT NIDCD, COMPUTATIONAL
APPROACHES THAT EVELINA ALSO
MENTIONED TO REALLY TALK ABOUT
AND INTEGRATE AN UNDERSTANDING
OF NOT ONLY CORTICAL AREAS OF
THE BRAIN, BUT HOW THEY ARE
INTIMATELY INVOLVED WITH THESE
SUBCORTICAL AREAS AND OTHER
AREAS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE
BRAIN.
BECAUSE IT DOES SEEM THAT THE
NETWORK IS A BILATERAL NETWORK
AND QUITE INTERCONNECTED, AS SHE
MENTIONED.
AND THESE KINDS OF NETWORKS ARE
REALLY NEEDED TO TRY TO
UNDERSTAND LINGUISTIC BEHAVIOR
AND FOR US TO UNDERSTAND AND
PREDICT WHAT WE EXPECT SHOULD
HAPPEN WHEN PATIENTS ARE GOING
TO UNDERGO PARTICULAR TYPES OF
PHENOMENA AND HOW WE NEED TO
INTERVENE USING THESE KINDS OF
COMPUTATIONAL MODELS TO SHORTEN
RECOVERY FOR THESE PATIENTS.
IT IS A -- IT IS REALLY A
FUNDAMENTAL COLLABORATION
BETWEEN THEORY AND EXPERIMENTAL
DATA.
THEORY AND BIOLOGY.
IT IS INTERDISCIPLINARY IN ITS
NATURE INVOLVING COGNITIVE
SCIENCE, LINGUISTICS, COMPUTER
SCIENCE, DATA SCIENCE AND NEURAL
SCIENCE AND NEURAL IMAGING.
I WANT TO THANK A GREAT DEAL OF
PEOPLE WHO WERE INVOLVED IN
MAKING THIS KIND OF RESEARCH
POSSIBLE.
AND MANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO
TRAINED ME ARE LINGUISTS AND
NEURAL PHYSIOLOGISTS AS WELL.
WE NEED GRADUATE STUDENTS WELL
VERSED IN COMPUTER SCIENCE AND
DATA SCIENCES TO BE ABLE TO HELP
TO DO ALL OF THIS KIND OF WORK.
SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT I WANTED
TO SHARE WITH YOU.
IT IS REALLY A NEW LAB.
WE ARE GOING TO BE DOING THIS
KIND OF WORK GOING FORWARD AND
I'D LOVE TO HAVE A CHANCE TO
HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU
ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED AND
HEAR YOUR COMMENTS.
>> WONDERFUL, DR. BIASSOU.
THAT WAS REALLY FANTASTIC.
AND PERHAPS IF YOU CAN LEAVE
YOUR CAMERA ON AND YOUR
MICROPHONE ON AND DR. FEDORENKO
CAN TURN ON HER CAMERA, TOO,
WHICH SHE HAS NOW DONE,
ANTICIPATING, PREDICTING MY NEXT
WORDS.
SO IN ANY CASE WE WILL GO TO THE
Q & A.
AT LEAST GETTING STARTED WE HAVE
A CONTRARIAN WHO IS ABOUT TO
ARTICULATE HIS QUESTION FIRST.
SO THIS PERSON IS ASKING THE
QUESTION, IF LANGUAGE EVOLVED TO
MERELY COMMUNICATE, WHY DID IT
BECOME SO COMPLEX?
CONVERSELY, THERE IS A
CONSTRUCTED LANGUAGE CALLED
TOKEPONA, I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING
ABOUT THIS, WITH ONLY 120 WORDS.
THAT IS APPARENTLY ONE CAN
COMMUNICATE AT A BASIC LEVEL
WITH ONLY 120 WORDS.
DOES LANGUAGE COMPLEXITY AND THE
LACK OF CERTAIN WORDS OR IDEAS
AND CERTAIN LANGUAGE SUPPORT
CHOMSKY'S THEORY?
THAT IS A QUESTION FOR EV, I
THINK.
>> SURE.
HAPPY TO TAKE IT.
I MEAN, I THINK THERE'S QUITE A
FEW DISTINCT IDEAS THAT ARE
PACKED INTO THIS QUESTION.
SO I WANT TO FIRST CLARIFY
SOMETHING.
SO IT IS CERTAINLY THE CASE THAT
LANGUAGE WILL REFLECT THE
UNDERLYING COMPLEXITY OF
THOUGHT.
WE SEE THIS BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS,
RIGHT?
WE CAN MAKE INFERENCES BY HOW
SMART SOMEBODY IS BY THE WAY
THEY TALK AND WHAT THEY SAY.
WHAT I'M ARGUING AGAINST IS I
THINK THIS FLAWED INFERENCE,
LOOK AT US, WE ARE HUMANS, WE
ARE SO SMART.
ALSO WE HAVE LANGUAGE,
THEREFORE, WE ARE SMART BECAUSE
WE HAVE LANGUAGE WHICH DOES NOT
LOGICALLY BE THE CASE.
I'M ARGUING FOR THE VIEW WE GOT
MORE SMART, WHICH WE CERTAINLY
DID, WITH THE EXPANSION OF THE
ASSOCIATION CORTEX, AS WELL AS
SOME SUBCORTICAL STRUCTURES.
WE ARE HIGHLY SOCIALIZED
CREATURES SO LANGUAGE CATCHES
UP.
WHY DON'T CHIMPS DEVELOP
LANGUAGE?
THE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM IS
PERFECTLY FINE FOR WHAT THEY ARE
TRYING TO COMMUNICATE.
IT SERVES THE NICHE THEY HAVE,
WE HAVE A LOT MORE TO SAY SO WE
DEVELOPED WORDS FOR MORE
CONCEPTS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
I'M NOT SURE I'M FAMILIAR WITH
THIS PARTICULAR -- I'M NOT SURE
HOW THE ARGUMENT FROM TOKEPONA
WORKS.
THERE ARE CONTEXTS, THE ONES
THAT HAVE BEEN INVENTED IN
CONTEXT OF SCIENCE FICTION,
KLINGON, AND OTHERS, ARE
INTERESTING PHENOMENA.
I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY
CAN TEACH US ABOUT NATURAL
LANGUAGE.
SO WE CAN CERTAINLY CONSTRUCT
NEW COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS.
WE ARE VERY FLEXIBLE BEINGS.
BUT I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT KIND
OF EVIDENCE CAN ARGUE FOR OR
AGAINST THE NOTION OF LANGUAGE
EVOLVING FOR THOUGHT.
IF THE PERSON WOULD LIKE TO
CLARIFY THE REASONING STIP --
STEPS THERE, I WOULD BE GLAD TO
ENGAGE.
IT IS NOT OBVIOUS.
DOES LANGUAGE COMPLEXITY AND THE
LACK OF CERTAIN WORDS IN
LANGUAGES SUPPORT CHOMSKY'S
THEORY.
LANGUAGES COME UP WITH WORDS
THAT ARE USEFUL TO THEM.
MANY OF THE WORLD'S LANGUAGES
DON'T HAVE WORDS FOR EXACT
NUMBERS.
THEY HAVE WORDS FOR A FEW AND
MORE, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE WORDS
FOR ONE OR TWO.
THE LANGUAGE SPOKEN BY AN AMAZON
AMAZONIAN TRIBE.
THEY DON'T NEED TO BECAUSE THEY
DON'T FARM.
WHEN YOU HAVE TO ENUMERATE
CERTAINLY ENTITIES.
IT SEEMS INDEPENDENT OF THIS
ARGUMENT BUT I'M HAPPY FOR THE
PERSON TO FOLLOW-UP AND I'M
SORRY IF I MISUNDERSTOOD SOME
CLAIM TS.
>> MAYBE WE WITH GO ON BECAUSE
WE HAVE A LONG LIST OF QUESTIONS
HERE.
ACTUALLY, YOU RAISED AN
INTERESTING POINT WITH REGARD TO
NON-HUMAN PRIMATES DISCUSSING
BONOBOS.
I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT TO WHETHER
ANY WORK HAS BEEN DONE IN TERMS
OF FUNCTIONAL MRI AND OTHER
SOPHISTICATED STUDIES LOOKING AT
NON-HUMAN PRIMATES TO LOOK AT
CERTAIN AREAS IN THE BRAIN IN
HUMANS ARE INVOLVED IN LANGUAGE.
ARE THEY ALSO LIGHTING UP IN
BONOBOS OR CHIMPANZEES OR
WHATEVER?
>> THERE IS SUCH WORK.
I MEAN, THERE IS A LOT OF
EARLIER WORK ON BRAIN ANATOMY.
ESTABLISHING ALL KINDS OF
HOMOLOGISTS IN TERMS OF CORTICAL
AREAS AND TRACKS THAT WERE IN
EARLIER FORM IN PRIMATE
RELATIVES.
IN STUDIES THERE WERE MACAS AS
WELL AS THE SOCIAL MONKEY WHOSE
NAME I'M -- THE HIGHLY SOCIAL
MONKEY SPECIES, MARMOSETS,
SORRY.
WHEN YOU HAVE A KID, A LOT OF
YOUR BRAIN POWER GOES OUT THE
WINDOW.
AND A VERY COOL SET OF FINDINGS
IS EMERGING FROM THAT WORK.
KM, WHEN I FIRST SAW THESE AREAS
THAT EMERGE WHEN BASICALLY
MONKEYS ARE OBSERVING OTHERS'
COMMUNICATIVE SIGNALS, THE
TOPOGRAPHY IS EERILY LIKE THE
HUMAN SYSTEM.
THERE ARE SPECIFIC HYPOTHESIS TO
TEST.
DEVELOPMENTAL DATA IN THE NEXT
10, 20 YEARS, THOSE QUESTIONS
ARE HARD, EVOLUTIONARILY AND
DEVELOPMENTALLY WE START OUT
WITH DEVELOPMENTAL TISSUE THAT
IS IN TUNE TO SPECIFICS.
WE ARE USELESS AS BABIES.
EXTREMELY SO FOR HUMANS, BUT
OTHER PRIMATES ARE HELPLESS SO
WE NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO CON
SPECIFICS TO SURVIVE.
WE HAVE A CORTEX THAT INITIALLY
RESPOND TO ALL SORTS OF
FEATURES, VOICES, FACES, ANY
SOCIAL RELATIVE INFORMATION AND
WE GET MORE SOPHISTICATED AND WE
LEARN ABOUT SOCIAL SIGNALS,
INCLUDING COMMUNICATIVE SYMBOLS
TO MAP BETWEEN FORMS AND
MEANINGS, THERE EMERGES A MOSAIC
IN THE COMMON AREA.
YOU CAN TEST IF THIS IS
RECAPITULATED IN HUMAN
DEVELOPMENT.
YOU CAN TEST THIS SO THERE
SHOULD BE A CHANGE IN INCREASING
SPECIFICITY FOR INCREASING
ASPECTS OF SOCIAL AGENTS THAT WE
OBSERVE.
FOR NOW IT IS A HYPOTHESIS.
>> EVELINA, CAN I FOLLOW UP?
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS
MENTIONED WHEN I WAS GRADUATING,
WAS THE LANGUAGE THAT HUMANS,
NOT THAT THE COMMUNICATION IS
UNIQUE.
WE KNOW THAT MANY ANIMAL SPECIES
HAVE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS.
THAT THE WAY IN WHICH HUMAN
LANGUAGE IS USED BY HUMANS TO
EXPRESS -- TO HAVE COMBINATIONS
OF SOUNDS TO EXPRESS A THOUGHT
THAT HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD BEFORE
IS SOMETHING THAT IS UNIQUE.
HAVE YOU FOUND THAT IS NOT
UNIQUE.
AND THAT OTHER ANIMAL SPECIES
HAVE THAT?
>> AGAIN, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT
COMPLEXITY IN THOUGHT LARGELY.
WE CERTAINLY KNOW
COMPOSITIONALTY IS NOT UNIQUELY
PRESENT IN HUMAN.
IF YOU WATCH CALADONIAN CROWS
GET FOOD OUT OOF BOTTLES, IT IS
CRAZY TO SAY HUMANS ARE THE ONLY
ONES TO COMBINE THESE.
WHAT I THINK HAS BEEN LEADING
THE FIELD FOR MANY YEARS IN NOT
QUITE A PRODUCTIVE DIRECTION IS
DISCOUNTING THE IMPORTANCE OF
STORAGE IN THE BRAIN AND A
SEARCH FOR SPECIALIZED CIRCUITS,
BRAIN REGIONS.
THERE IS A LONG HISTORY IN
HUMANS TO WANT TO BE SPECIAL, TO
BE CATEGORICALLY DIFFERENT FROM
OTHER ANIMALS.
FROM COPERNICUS WHO GOT CRAP FOR
HIS DISCOVERY AND PEOPLE WHO
WANT TO DISCOVER THIS REGION
THAT DOESN'T EXIST IN ANIMALS.
THE EVIDENCE FOR THAT IS JUST
NOT THERE.
TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS SOME
REGIONS THAT DON'T HAVE CLEAR
HOMOLOGUES.
THEY ARE THE FRONT CORTEX.
WHY PEOPLE ARE SO OBSESSED?
I DON'T KNOW.
ANIMALS ARE GREAT.
WE ARE AN INTERESTING ANIMAL.
I CAN TEACH MY DOG SOME WORDS.
IT IS TRUE.
I CAN AND I HAVE, TOO.
YOU CAN TEACH PARROTS WORDS, BUT
YOU CAN'T TEACH THEM TO COMBINE
THINGS IN NEW WAYS.
YOU CAN TEACH THEM WORDS BUT YOU
CAN'T TEACH THEM 10,000 WORDS A
3-YEAR-OLD OR 4-YEAR-OLD WOULD
KNOW.
THESE ARE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE
AND PEOPLE SET IT ASIDE.
STORAGE IS IMPORTANT.
THE MORE EASILY YOU CAN STORE,
YOU CAN MAKE ABSTRACTIONS, FIND
GENERALIZATIONS, FIND
COMPARISONS THAT IS NOT APPARENT
IF YOU ARE STORING A SMALL
NUMBER OF ELEMENTS.
SOME OF THE PROPERTIES OF -- IN
LANGUAGE AND PERHAPS SOME
ASPECTS OF REASONING ARE
ACTUALLY FALLING OUT OF THIS
GREAT ABILITY TO STORE
INFORMATION AND TO FORM
ABSTRACTIONS.
AND I HAVE A PAPER WITH STEVE --
WHO WORKED OUT A BUNCH OF MATH.
I THINK ABOUT THESE ISSUES FOR
HOW THAT COULD HAPPEN.
MATHEMATICAL PROOFS NOT
EMPIRICAL E6D.
I THINK WE SHOULDN'T DISCOUNT
HAVING A BIGGER BRAIN.
>> SO THE TWO OF YOU HAVE NOW
OPENED PANDORA'S BOX.
SINCE YOU ARE TALKING NOW ABOUT
THE ANIMAL KINGDOM, I THINK THAT
WE ARE READY FOR THE NEXT
QUESTION, WHICH IS, HAVE DOGS
AND CATS BEEN SCANNED IN
FUNCTIONAL MRIs WHEN ONE
MENTIONED TO THE DOG OR THE CAT
THEIR NAME, YOU KNOW?
DOES THAT LIGHT UP SOMETHING IN
THEIR BRAIN AND IS IT IN SOME
SORT OF ANALOGOUS AREA IN THE
DOG OR CAT BRAIN TO THE HUMAN
BRAIN?
>> I DON'T KNOW.
THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF WORDS.
IT IS A GROWING LIKE DOGNITION,
DOG COGNITION.
>> THEY HAVE DEFINITELY USED
CATS TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND
THE ROLE OF THE THALAMUS IN
MODULATING CORTICAL ACTIVITY IN
THE AUDITORY CORTEX.
WHETHER THAT IS ASSOCIATED TO
LANGUAGE ENTITIES LIKE THE CAT'S
NAME AND SO ON, WE DON'T KNOW.
BUT WE DO USE OTHER ANIMALS TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT IS HAPPENING
WITHIN THE HUMAN BRAIN, IN TERMS
OF ACTIVITY, YOU KNOW, FREQUENCY
MODULATION IN THE AUDITORY
CORTEX AND ITS EFFECT IN
UNDERSTANDING FEEDBACK
MECHANISMS AND FEEDBACK LOOPS
FROM THE THALAMUS TO THE CORTEX
AND BACK TO THE THALAMUS.
YES, WE DO LOOK AT, I MEAN, THE
FIELD IN GENERAL DOES LOOK AT
MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF ANIMALS
TO TRY TO ANSWER THOSE TYPES OF
QUESTIONS AND THEN USE THE
NONINVASIVE IMAGING TK NICS TO
CONFIRM THAT IN HUMANS.
>> SPEAKING OF PANDORA, ANOTHER
QUESTION THAT HAS COME UP HAS TO
DO WITH THE -- MAYBE THIS IS
JUST A MISUNDERSTANDING OF SOME
OF THE THINGS THE TWO OF YOU
HAVE PRESENTED.
A LOT OF THESE IMAGES OF THE
BRAIN SHOW CERTAIN AREAS OF THE
CORTEX THAT LIGHT UP.
OR IN SOME CASES, NADIA SHOWED
SOME LIGHTING UP OF AREAS IN THE
THALAMUS OR BASAL GANGLIA OR
WHAT HAVE YOU.
ARE THERE ANY WAYS OF IMAGING
LIKE NETWORKS OR TRACKS OR
SOMETHING THAT INVOLVES MULTIPLE
COMPONENTS WORKING TOGETHER IN
SOME SORT OF A SYNERGISTIC WAY?
IS
>> YES.
THERE ARE -- THERE IS A WHOLE
FIELD OF LOOKING AT NETWORK
NEUROSCIENCE WHERE WE ARE REALLY
LOOKING AT THE CONNECTIVITY OF
THESE AREAS AND NOT JUST
PARTICULAR AREAS OF CORTICAL
ACTIVATION.
IN FACT, THE LAB THAT WE HAVE
JUST RECENTLY STARTED IS FOCUSED
ON THAT.
I DID NOT SHOW THAT TO YOU
BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE A LOT OF
DATA WE ARE STILL ANALYZING, BUT
WE ARE ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN
THE INTERCONNECTIVITY OF THESE
AREAS.
AND LOOKING AT HOW THOSE
CONNECTIVITIES CHANGE AS A
FUNCTION OF INJURY, AS A
FUNCTION OF SURGERY AND WE HAVE
BEEN ABLE TO AT LEAST
PRELIMINARY DATA SHOWS THAT IT
IS NOT JUST A REWORKING OF JUST
A LOCAL NETWORK.
WE DO HAVE THAT, BUT WE HAVE
ALSO, YOU KNOW, CHANGES IN WIDE
NETWORK CHANGES EVEN ON THE
OTHER SIDE OF THE -- THE
CONTRALATERAL SIDE OF THE BRAIN.
THE FIELD IS LOOKING AT
CONNECTIVITY TO BETTER
UNDERSTAND THESE BEHAVIORAL
METRICS AND I THINK THEY ARE
ALSO LOOKING AT MULTIMODAL
IMAGING TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND
MANY ASPECTS OF THE BEHAVIOR.
>> MM-HMM.
OKAY.
NOW, EV RAISED THE QUESTION OF
SORT OF CAPACITY BEING A MAJOR
COMPONENT OF THIS.
THAT MAYBE IT IS THAT ONE HAS TO
HAVE A CERTAIN SCALE IN ORDER TO
SORT OF MAKE THE QUANTUM JUMP
FROM JUST A FEW SCATTERED WORDS
OR GRUNTS OR WHATEVER TO A
LANGUAGE.
SO THERE WAS AN ARTICLE ONLINE A
FEW DAYS AGO WHICH THE
QUESTIONER DID NOT READ, JUST
READ THE HEADLINE, NOT THE
ARTICLE.
ALWAYS A DANGEROUS THING TO DO,
BUT IN ANY CASE, THE QUESTION
HAD TO DO WITH BRAIN ORGANOIDS
AND WHETHER BRAIN ORGANOIDS CAN
DEVELOP CONSCIOUSNESS?
THIS MAY BE A PURELY SPECULATIVE
OR PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION, BUT
THIS IS AN INTERESTING
DISCUSSION AND DO EITHER OF YOU
HAVE ANY THOUGHTS WITH REGARD TO
THAT QUESTION?
>> EV, I WILL LET YOU TAKE THAT.
>> SO I DON'T GENERALLY THINK
TOO MUCH ABOUT ORGANIZE, BUT
THERE IS A LOT OF DISCUSSION
ALONG THESE LINES ABOUT
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.
AS THESE LANGUAGE MODELS ARE
GETTING SMARTER, ANOTHER VERY
INTERESTING PLACE WHERE LANGUAGE
AND THOUGHT GET CONFLATED AND I
WILL EXPLAIN WHY.
NORMALLY WHEN WE HEAR LINGUISTIC
INPUT IT COMES FROM A THINKING
BRAIN.
BUT SUDDENLY WE HAVE THESE
NETWORKS THAT PRODUCE COHERENT
TEXTS, SOMETIMES YOU CAN'T TELL
AT LEAST FOR A LITTLE WHILE
HUMAN GENERATED OR MACHINE
GENERATED.
THEN PEOPLE START ATTRIBUTING TO
THESE MODELS SOMETHING THAT GOES
WELL BEYOND THEIR LINGUISTIC
CAPACITY.
>> YES.
>> HOW CAN THESE MODELS GET
THERE?
THEY CAN'T.
OF COURSE, THERE ARE SOME
REGULARITIES OF THE WORLD THAT
GET REFLECTED IN LANGUAGE
STATISTICS SO IT APPEARS THEY
ACQUIRED SOME DEEP KNOWLEDGE.
THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT A TABLE IS.
HOW CAN THEY?
THEY ARE DISEMBODIED SETS OF
UNITS THAT TALK TO EACH OTHER
AND LEARN LINGUISTIC REGULARITY
REGULARITIES.
SOME PEOPLE HAVE SAID THAT IS A
BIG PROBLEM.
IT DEPENDING ON WHAT YOUR GOALS
ARE, I SUPPOSE.
IF MY GOAL IS TO HAVE AN
IMPLEMENTED SYSTEM THAT IS
PROBABLE, FOR ME, THAT IS GREAT
BECAUSE THESE MODELS SERVE ADDS
VERY GOOD MODELS OF THE SYSTEM I
STUDY, NOT A SYSTEM OF THOUGHT,
A SYSTEM THAT LEARNS WORDS AND
LEARNS HOW THEIR COMBINATIONS
APPROXIMATE SOME MEANING THAT
CAN BE LATER, SOME REASONING CAN
BE PERFORMED BY DOWNSTREAM
SYSTEMS.
THE WAY THESE MODELS ARE TRAINED
MAKES THEM GOOD CANDIDATE FOR
HOW LANGUAGE MIGHT BE CARRIED
OUT IN HUMANS.
I WAS RUSHING THROUGH AT THE END
OF MY TALK, BUT WORK FROM A FEW
GROUPS, INCLUDING OURS, EVEN
THOUGH THESE MODELS ARE NOT
BUILT AS MIND OR THE BRAIN, BUT
IN SOLVING TASKS, LIKE HAVING
SIRI TALK TO YOU THAT LIKE IT
DOES NOW.
THESE KIND OF THINGS.
SOMETHING ABOUT THE WAY THESE
MODELS ARE TRAINED MAKES THEM
PROVIDE A REASONABLY GOOD FIT TO
THE NEURAL REPRESENTATIONS FROM
HUMAN BRAINS AS THEY PROCESS
LANGUAGE.
WORK IN VISION HAS DRIVEN US TO
TRY THIS FOR LANGUAGE.
I THINK IT IS INCREDIBLY
EXCITING.
I WOULD NOT HAVE PREDICTED WE
COULD GET BEYOND, PUTTING BLOBS
ON THE BRAIN AND SYNTAX HAPPENS
HERE.
WE HAVE ACTUAL MODELS WE CAN
PLAY WITH, ARCHITECTURE,
TRAINING, OBJECTIVE FUNCTIONS
AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT ARE
THE NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT
CONDITIONS FOR A MODEL TO HAVE
SO IT PROVIDES A GOOD FIT FOR
THE HUMAN BRAIN.
>> THIS GETS BACK TO THE ISSUE
OF MINDS AND BRAINS.
ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE
ORGANIZATION OF THE HUMAN MIND
OR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE
BRAIN?
EVEN THOUGH THE MIND COMES FROM
THE BRAIN, YES, BUT WHEN WE ARE
LOOKING AT A.I. AND SOFIA, FOR
EXAMPLE, WHO THE SOPHISTICATED
ROBOT THAT IS REALLY ABLE TO
MIMIC EXTREMELY WELL WHAT HUMANS
DO, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU WANT
TO USE THE DATA FOR.
IF WHAT YOU WANT IS TO THEN BE
ABLE TO INTERVENE TO SHORTEN
RECOVERY TIME, EVEN THE MOST
SOPHISTICATED A.I. MACHINE
LEARNING MODELS STILL WILL NOT
BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU WHAT YOU
WANT IN TERMS OF UNDERSTANDING
THAT OVERLAY OF HOW IT IS
ACTUALLY BEING DONE WITHIN THE
BRAIN.
I THINK ONE DOES REALLY HAVE TO
LOOK IN THE BRAIN TO REALLY
UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE MODELS
ARE.
THE BRAIN DATA WILL CONSTRAIN
WHAT THOSE A.I. AND MACHINE
LEARNING ALGORITHMS WILL DO.
IT DEPENDS WHAT YOU WANT.
IF YOU WANT IT TO MIMIC AND
SIMULATE WHAT WE ARE DOING,
THEN, YES.
WE DON'T NEED TO UNDERSTAND AT
ALL WHAT HAPPENS IN THE BRAIN TO
BE ABLE TO DO WHAT THESE
COMPUTER, THESE ROBOTS ARE ABLE
TO DO.
AS YOU SAID, EVELINA, NONE OF
THEM WERE EVER -- NONE OF THESE
ALGORITHMS WERE CREATED OR
GENERATED TO EXPLAIN WHAT
HAPPENS IN THE HUMAN BRAIN, BUT
THE OUTWARD BEHAVIOR IS
REMARKABLY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE
DO.
BUT IT IS REALLY TALKING MORE
ABOUT THAT AN ORGANIZATION OF
THE MIND UNDERSTANDING RATHER
THAN HOW IT ACTUALLY IS
SUBSTANTIATED IN THE BRAIN.
IF YOU WANT TO INTERVENE IN THAT
BRAIN, YOU DO NEED TO UNDERSTAND
HOW IT IS REALLY -- NOSE NODES
AND, YOU KNOW, NETWORKS HAVE TO
HAVE A MEANING IN SPACE AND
TIME.
WITHIN THE BRAIN.
>> OKAY.
SO NOW WE HAVE SOMEONE THAT'S
GOING IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.
WE ARE GOING TO LEAVE THE DOGS
AND CATS BEHIND FOR A MOMENT,
AND INSTEAD THERE IS THE
QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THERE
ARE -- IN A WAY, I GUESS THIS
DOES GO ALONG THAT SAME LINE OF
THINKING, ARE THERE SPECIFIC
GENES RELATED TO SPECIFIC
LANGUAGE COMPONENTS, SUCH AS FOX
P2.
>> I CAN BRIEFLY SAY SOMETHING.
SIMON FISHER, THE DISCOVERER OF
FOX P2 WHEN HE WAS A GRADUATE
STUDENT IN MONACO'S LAB, HE
SPENT THE REST OF HIS CAREER
EXPLAINING TO PEOPLE IT IS NOT A
LANGUAGE GENE.
THERE IS NO -- WE SHOULD NOT
EXPECT GENES TO CARVE OUT
COGNITION INTO BOXES.
THERE IS NOT ENOUGH GENES TO
HAVE A SPECIFIC GENE FOR
SPECIFIC GENETIC FUNCTIONS.
IT IS COMPLEX ON BEHAVIOR.
AUTISM RESEARCH IT HAS BEEN
STUDIED RECENTLY WHERE NUMEROUS,
NUMEROUS GENES HAVE BEEN
IMPLICATED.
SOME GENES HAVE SUBSTANTIAL
EFFECTS.
THE RARE SUBSTANTIAL MUTATIONS
CAN HAVE BIG EFFECTS.
IN MOST CASES IT IS A WHOLE
BUNCH OF GENES.
EACH OF THEM HAS A TINY EFFECT.
TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OF THAT IS
COMPLICATED AND THE ONLY
RELIABLE LINKS TO BEHAVIOR IS
MEASURES OF I.Q., ONE VERY
STABLE BEHAVIORAL MARKER WE HAVE
IN OUR DISPOSAL, BUT IN GENERAL,
NO, THERE IS NO SUCH THINGS AS
GENES FOR LANGUAGE AND FOR
SPEECH.
THAT SAID, IT IS CERTAINLY THE
CASE THAT CERTAIN SPEECH AND
LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT DISORDERS
RUN IN FAMILIES FROM DYSLEXIA,
TO STUTTERING AND THINGS LIKE
THAT.
BUT AGAIN, IT IS NOT GOING TO BE
THE CASE THIS GENE ONLY CONTROLS
THIS ASPECT OF SPEECH AND/OR
LANGUAGE AND/OR ONLY THIS GENE
CONTRIBUTES TO THESE EFFECTS.
IT IS A MUCH MORE COMPLEX
INTERPLAY.
FOR THOSE INTERESTED, I WOULD
HIGHLY RECOMMEND, SIMON FISHER
HAS TWEET TORIALS ON TWITTER
WHERE HE GOES THROUGH THE BASIC
MISUNDERSTANDING OF PEOPLE
MAKING PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THESE
GENES BEING FOR LANGUAGE.
>> YOUR COMMENT THAT THERE
AREN'T ENOUGH GENES IN THE HUMAN
GENOME TO ACCOUNT FOR ALL OF THE
THINGS WE WOULD HAVE TO ACCOUNT
FOR IN COGNITION AND THOUGHT AND
SO FORTH SORT OF HARKENS BACK TO
COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE BACK IN
THE 1970s, THERE WEREN'T ENOUGH
TO EXPLAIN THE MOLECULAR
IMMUNOGLOBULIN GENES THAT COULD
MUTE -- MUTATE.
THERE IS A SYSTEM BASED ON THOSE
GENES BUT NOT EACH GENE HAS A
SPECIFIC --
>> RIGHT.
ONE TO ONE RELATIONSHIP.
>> FUNCTION IN THE SYSTEM.
SO IT IS AN INTERESTING
QUESTION, THOUGH, AND CERTAINLY
AN IMPORTANT ONE IN TERMS OF HOW
WE THINK ABOUT THE WHOLE
PROCESS.
SO THEN HERE'S ONE.
NOW WE'RE GETTING INTO THE
POLYGLOTS.
AND THERE IS THE QUESTION OF
WHETHER POLYGLOTS CAN ALSO
REMEMBER NAMES AND NUMBERS.
>> IT IS A VERY HETEROGENEOUS
POPULATION.
TO MY KNOWLEDGE TWO OR THREE
GROUPS WORK WITH THIS
POPULATION.
THEY ARE HARD TO RECRUIT AND
FIND AND I THINK IT IS A REAL
MISTAKE TO CALL THEM, TO REFER
TO THEM AS A GROUP.
WE HAVE BEEN STUDYING THEM AS
SUCH AND COMING INTO THIS I WAS
EXPECTING A LOT MORE HOME --
HOMOGENEITY.
SOME ARE HUGELY SOCIAL AND GO TO
MARKETS AND STRIKE UP
CONVERSATIONS WITH STRANGERS.
I'M AN INTROVERT.
I USED TO SPEAK MULTIPLE
LANGUAGE.
IT IS DEAD NOW HAVING LIVED IN
THE U.S. FOR YEARS NOW.
THEY ARE GOOD IN DIFFERENT WAYS.
THERE IS A "WASHINGTON POST"
ARTICLE OF A GUY WHO IS A CARPET
CLEANER IN WASHINGTON WHO SPEAKS
50 LANGUAGES.
HE IS INCREDIBLY GOOD AT IMITATE
IMITATING.
YOU CAN SAY SOMETHING TO HIM IN
AN UNFAMILIAR LANGUAGE, HE WILL
REPRODUCE THE SOUND FORM.
IT IS INCREDIBLE.
REALLY, REALLY STRIKING.
SOME PEOPLE HAVE ACCENTS AND ARE
GOOD AT REMEMBERING WORDS.
THAT POPULATION DESERVES A LOT
MORE STUDY, BUT IT IS REALLY
HARD.
SOME KIND OF INTERNATIONAL
EFFORTS WOULD HAVE TO BE PUT
TOGETHER TO TRY TO GET ENOUGH OF
THESE INDIVIDUALS STUDIED SO WE
CAN MAKE SOME CONCLUSIONS THAT
APPLY TO THE POPULATION AS A
WHOLE.
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE, FROM WHAT YOU
ARE SAYING, WE DON'T EVEN REALLY
HAVE A GOOD IDEA OF HOW MANY OF
THEM THERE ARE OUT THERE.
IT IS NOT LIKE THESE PEOPLE
NECESSARILY ADVERTISE.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> THE FACT THEY CAN DO THAT.
>> SOME OF THEM ARE REAL LONERS.
YEAH.
>> I SEE.
SO ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT THE
POLYGLOTS.
AND I THINK THAT PROBABLY FROM
YOUR ANSWER TO THE PREVIOUS
QUESTION I COULD PREDICT THE
WORDS YOU USE TO ANSWER THIS
QUESTION.
THE QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH
CERTAIN STEREOTYPES OF POLYGLOTS
IN TERMS OF PERHAPS THERE ARE
MORE OF THEM THAT ARE AUTISTIC.
>> A LEFT-HANDED MALE.
>> YEAH.
SO YOU WOULD POOH-POOH THAT.
>> YES.
THERE ARE MORE MALE POLYGLOTS.
WOMEN WERE STUCK IN FRONT OF
STOVES.
THEY HAVEN'T HAD TIME.
I THINK UNTIL WE HAVE MORE RIGOR
IN STUDYING THIS POPULATION I
WOULD BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT DRAWING
ANY SUCH CONCLUSIONS CERTAINLY
FROM THE KIND OF DATA WE HAVE, I
WOULDN'T SAY THAT.
>> OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.
SO NOW THE QUESTIONS ARE JUST
FLOODING IN.
>> WE ARE SAYING THINGS THAT ARE
CONTROVERSIAL.
>> KEEP OUR HEADS ABOVE WATER
HERE.
SO HERE IS A QUESTION.
CAN DR. BIASSOU COMMENT ON THE
EMERGING EVIDENCE OF
BILINGUALISM OR MULTILINGUALISM
OFFERING SOME PROTECTION AGAINST
DEMENTIA?
>> WELL, THIS KIND OF GOES ALONG
THE SAME LINES.
NUMBER ONE, THE PATIENTS, THE
DEMENTIA PATIENTS, WHICH
DEMENTIA ARE WE TALKING ABOUT,
ALZHEIMER'S, FRONTAL TEMPORAL
DEMENTIA, VASCULAR DEMENTIA,
EACH GROUP IN AND OF THEMSELVES
ARE HIGHLY HETEROGENEOUS IN
TERMS OF LOOKING AT EARLY,
MODERATE, AND SEVERE DISEASE AND
BILINGUALISM IN AND OF ITSELF
ALSO IS A HETEROGENEOUS GROUP.
WHAT DEGREE OF BILINGUALISM?
WHEN DID YOU LEARN THE LANGUAGE?
HOW BALANCED IS YOUR
UNDERSTANDING?
CAN YOU SPEAK, WRITE, AND READ
WITH EQUAL PROFICIENCY?
SO THERE IS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT
OF VARIABILITY IN ALL OF
THOSE -- IN EACH OF THESE
GROUPS.
SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A
FAIRLY LARGE STUDY.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS
ANYONE WHO HAS DONE THAT.
SOME ARE LOOKING AT BILINGUALISM
AND TRYING TO ANSWER THAT AT
LEAST IN NORMAL INDIVIDUALS.
I DON'T KNOW THAT ONE HAS REALLY
BEEN ABLE TO EXAMINE DEMENTIA IN
THAT PARTICULAR WAY.
>> OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
EV, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD
TO THAT?
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THE
GENERAL CLAIM THAT BILINGUALISM
TRAINS UP YOUR DOMAIN GENERAL
CONTROL SYSTEM IS HIGHLY
CONTROVERSIAL AND THERE ARE
MULTIPLE LARGE SCALE STUDIES
WITH THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE FAILING
TO REPLICATE THEIR ORIGINAL
CLAIMS.
A JUNIOR RESEARCHER AT HARVARD
AS A POST DOC, SHE HAS DONE
BEAUTIFUL WORK SHOWING A LOT OF
THE EARLY CLAIMS ABOUT FINDING
RESPONSES IN DOMAIN COGNITIVE
CONTROL AREAS ARE DUE TO TASK
DEMANDS.
YOU CONSTRUCT THESE VERY
ARTIFICIAL PARADIGMS.
I'LL SHOW YOU THIS CLUE, SAY THE
WORD IN FRENCH, I'LL SHOW YOU
THIS CLUE, SAY THE WORD IN
ENGLISH.
IF YOU MAKE PARADIGMS, I WILL
SHOW YOU A NATIVE SPEAKER OF
FRENCH AND YOU KIND OF NATURALLY
ADAPT TO SEEING, I KNOW THAT DAN
SPEAKS GERMAN AND NADIA SPEAKS
ITALIAN.
IF YOU MAKE PARADIGMS MUCH MORE
NATURALISTIC, A LOT OF THE
ACTIVATIONS DISAPPEAR.
WHICH IS NOT TO SAY THAT NO
CLAIMS HOLD WATER, BUT THAT
LITERATURE GENERALLY IS VERY
COMPLEX EMPIRICAL LANDSCAPE.
>> AND THERE IS EVEN THE ISSUE
OF PEOPLE CODE SWITCHING IN
BILINGUALISM.
THEY MAY START A THOUGHT IN ONE
LANGUAGE AND THEN SWITCH AND SAY
THE REST OF THE THOUGHT IN
ANOTHER LANGUAGE AND SO THERE
ARE -- AS EVELINA HAS DESCRIBED,
THERE ARE SO MANY ASPECTS OF
BILINGUALISM ONE NEEDS TO
CONTROL FOR TO ANSWER THIS
QUESTION.
I DON'T THINK ONE HAS DONE ALL
OF THOSE KINDS OF CONTROLS AT
THIS TIME.
>> NOW, SPEAKING OF BILINGUALISM
AND MULTILINGUALISM, HERE THE
QUESTIONER IS ASKING FOR ADVICE.
AND PERHAPS YOU WILL WANT TO
DISPENSE ADVICE AND PERHAPS YOU
WON'T.
BUT YOU'LL HAVE YOUR
OPPORTUNITY.
DO YOU HAVE ANY ADVICE FOR THOSE
OF US WHO ARE NOT POLYGLOTS OR
MULTILINGUAL IN HOW BEST TO
LEARN A NEW LANGUAGE?
>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY.
>> BE YOUNGER.
LEARN THEM AS A CHILD.
>> BE YOUNGER.
>> YOU KNOW, IT IS MAYBE TOO
LATE FOR YOU, BUT IF YOU WANT
YOUR KIDS TO SPEAK ANOTHER
LANGUAGE, TEACH THEM EARLY.
THERE IS SOMETHING -- WELL, THAT
IS STILL DEBATED ABOUT WHETHER
SOMETHING IS FUNDAMENTALLY
DIFFERENT ABOUT OUR BRAINS WHEN
WE ARE ACQUIRING OUR FIRST
LANGUAGE OR OUR FIRST LANGUAGES
IN CASES OF BILINGUALISM OR THE
EXPOSURE IS FUNDAMENTALLY
DIFFERENT.
ANY IMMERSION PROGRAM YOU CAN
IMAGINE YOU NEVER QUITE GET THIS
EXPERIENCE WHERE INFANTS HAVE
ANY TIME THEY ARE AWAKE, THERE
IS A FACE RIGHT IN FRONT OF
THEIR FACE TALKING AT THEM.
THAT IS NOT AN EXPERIENCE YOU
HAVE AS A SECOND LANGUAGE
LEARNER.
YEAH, BEYOND TRYING TO LEARN
LANGUAGES EARLIER IN LIFE, I
DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS MORE
WISDOM.
BUT I -- ONE THING TO SAY, DON'T
BE, LIKE, IF YOU WANT TO LEARN
LANGUAGES, YOU CAN.
PEOPLE HAVE LEARNED LANGUAGES IN
ADULTHOOD QUITE WELL.
IF YOU START LEARNING A LANGUAGE
AND IT IS HARD, YEAH, IT IS
HARD.
DON'T BE DISMAYED BY SOME PEOPLE
ARE GOOD AT IT AND I'M JUST BAD.
PUT IN THE TIME.
A LOT OF THINGS GET BETTER WITH
TIME AND PRACTICE.
>> MM-HMM.
YEAH.
>> LANGUAGE IMMERSION IS ONE WAY
TO FORCE YOURSELF TO HAVE TO DO
THAT.
>> YEAH.
YEAH.
ARE THERE ANY IMAGING STUDIES
SHOWING CHANGES IN THE STRUCTURE
OF THE BRAIN SAY BETWEEN A YOUNG
CHILD?
I MEAN, PRESUMABLY, THERE ARE
SOME CHANGES, BUT CHANGES THAT
COULD POSSIBLY ACCOUNT FOR
DIFFERENCES IN LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION VERY EARLY IN LIFE
VERSUS LATER ON IN LIFE?
>> WELL, THERE IS A GREAT DEAL
OF DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF
MYLINATION PATTERNS IN CHILDREN.
I DON'T KNOW THAT IS THE REASON
WHY.
BUT WE KNOW THAT IS VERY
DIFFERENT, THE MYLENATION
PATTERN WHEN YOU ARE YOUNGER
VERSUS WHEN YOU ARE OLDER.
THAT MAY BE ONE THING.
I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE.
THERE WAS VERY EARLY, EARLY ON,
A HYPOTHESIS THAT WHEN YOU
LEARNED A SECOND LANGUAGE, THERE
WAS A QUESTION OF WHETHER IT WAS
SUPERIMPOSED ON THE PRIMARY
LANGUAGE OR WHETHER IT WAS KIND
OF REPRESENTED IN A DIFFERENT
AREA OF THE BRAIN?
I DON'T KNOW THAT -- AND SOME
PEOPLE EVEN ARGUE THAT THE
STRUCTURE OF THE BRAIN CHANGED
AS A FUNCTION OF LEARNING A
DIFFERENT LANGUAGE.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY HAVE DONE
IMAGING STUDIES ON THAT, BUT
THAT WAS ONE THING THAT WAS
VERY -- THAT WAS TALKED ABOUT
IRIR
-- EARLY ON.
IN PART BECAUSE WHEN PATIENTS
HAD STROKES, SOME PATIENTS MAY
HAVE LOST THE ABILITY TO DO
CERTAIN TASKS IN ONE LANGUAGE
BUT WAS STILL PRESERVED IN THE
ORIGINAL LANGUAGE.
AT ONE POINT THERE WAS TALK
ABOUT THAT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY DID -- I
KNOW THEY DID BEHAVIORAL
STUDIES.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY DID IMAGING
STUDIES ON THAT.
>> MM-HMM.
WELL, BUT IT IS INTERESTING THAT
A VASCULAR LESION IN A
PARTICULAR DISTRIBUTION WOULD
KNOCK OUT YOUR ABILITY TO SPEAK
GERMAN, BUT NOT ENGLISH.
>> YEAH.
BUT NOT ENGLISH.
YES.
>> WELL, THAT IS INTERESTING.
HERE WE HAVE A VERY LONG
QUESTION I WILL READ TO YOU.
THANK YOU FOR AH VERY
INTERESTING TALK.
FOR ME, THE STRONGEST EVIDENCE
OF LANGUAGE COMPLEXITY INFLUSING
THOUGHT COMES FROM THEORY OF
MIND.
WHERE OUR PRIMARY LANGUAGE OR
LANGUAGES SHAPES THE WAY WE
PLACE OURSELVES IN THE WORLD.
IN SEVERAL FIRST NATIONS,
LANGUAGES, FOR INSTANCE, THERE
ARE MANY MORE GROUP PRONOUNS AND
THESE SOCIETIES TEND TO BE MORE
COMMUNITY-ORIENTED AND LESS
INDIVIDUALISTIC.
YOU MENTIONED THIS IN PASSING IN
YOUR SLIDES.
CAN YOU ELABORATE ON HOW
LANGUAGE INTERFACES WITH THEORY
OF MIND AND THROUGH THAT
COGNITION?
>> I THINK THAT IS FOR YOU, EVE.
>> IT IS A FREE-FOR-ALL.
>> THERE ARE A COUPLE OF IDEAS
PACKED INTO THIS QUESTION.
ONE IS TO, AGAIN, EMPHASIZE IN
CASE THIS WASN'T CLEAR BECAUSE I
KNOW IT WAS A PRETTY FAST-PACED
TALK IS THAT IN THE ADULT
BRAINS, THE LANGUAGE SYSTEM AND
THE SYSTEM THAT SUPPORTS
SOCIAL -- THEORY OF MIND OR
SOCIAL REASONING ARE DISTINCT.
THEY ACTIVATE DISTINCT BRAIN
CIRCUITS AND CAN TAKE AWAY YOUR
LANGUAGE SYSTEM, IN CASES OF A
LARGE STROKE, YOU CAN STILL
REASON VERY WELL ABOUT OTHER
PEOPLE'S MINDS AND INTENTIONS
AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
THAT SAID, IN THESE CASES WHERE
KIDS GROW UP WITHOUT LINGUISTIC
INPUT, DEAF KIDS GROWING UP WITH
HEARING PARENTS WHERE NO ONE IS
SIGNING TO THEM, ONE ASPECT
LATER DEVELOPING IS THEORY OF
MIND.
THINKING WHAT DAN THINKS, WHAT
NADIA THINK, SECOND ORDER
REASONS ABOUT THEORY OF MIND.
THE NATURE OF THAT CONNECTION IS
NOT CLEAR YET.
SOME STUDIES CAUSALLY SHOW IF
YOU TRAIN KIDS ON VERBS OF
MENTAL STATE ATTRIBUTION LIKE
BELIEVE OR THINK OR
CONSTRUCTIONS LIKE THESE
EMBEDDED CLAUSED CONSTRUCTIONS
LIKE DAN SAID THAT X.
THAT IS NOT AN ATRIBT.
THERE IS A LOT OF COOL WORK TO
DO THERE.
I WILL MENTION SO THE SECOND
PART OF THE QUESTION RAL REALLY
HAS TO DO WITH EFFECTS OF
LANGUAGE ON THOUGHT.
AND THIS RELATES BACK TO WHAT I
WAS TALKING ABOUT NOT HAVING
WORDS FOR NUMBERS.
COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS WILL ADAPT
TO THE NEEDS OF THE SOCIETY.
SO IF YOU HAVE A NEED TO TALK
ABOUT SOMETHING, YOU WILL COME
UP WITH WORDS AND LABELS FOR
THOSE THINGS.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE THOSE NEEDS,
YOU WON'T.
THERE ARE SOMETIMES STRONGER
CLAIMS THAT HAVING CERTAIN WORDS
IN A LANGUAGE MAKE YOU PERCEIVE
THE WORLD DIFFERENTLY.
FOR EXAMPLE, COLOR WORDS.
RUSSIAN HAS TWO DIFFERENT WORDS
FOR BLUE.
DARK BLUE AND LIGHT BLUE ARE
DIFFERENT.
THOSE CLAIMS DON'T OSEEM TO BE
EMPIRICALLY ROBUST.
HAVING A VERBAL LABEL WILL HELP
YOU DO A TASK IN THE CONTEXT OF
A LAB EXPERIMENT, OF COURSE YOU
WILL DO IT.
WE ARE VERY GOOD OF SOLVING
PROBLEMS.
IF WE HAVE A WAY TO ENCODE THAT
NFGTS, WE WILL.
THE FACT OF THINKING OF THE
WORLD DIFFERENTLY, IT IS A LOT
LESS CLEAR.
>> SO THE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN
DIFFERENT KINDS OF SNOW FLAKES
THAT ESKIMOS HAVE FOR MULTIPLE
DIFFERENT WORDS FOR SNOW FLAKES,
WET SNOW, DRY SNOW, WHATEVER.
>> YEAH.
>> YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT BUT
PERHAPS IT IS HARDER TO THINK
ABOUT HOW DIFFERENT WORDS FOR
DIFFERENT FEELINGS OR
MOTIVATIONS OR THINGS LIKE THAT.
>> EVEN THE WORDS FOR SNOW.
THERE IS SOMETHING FUNNY
SOMETIMES IN THE REASONING
DIRECTION.
IT IS NOT LIKE HAVING THOSE
WORDS MAKES YOU BETTER ABLE TO
DISCRIMINATE DIFFERENT SNOW.
YOU ARE IN AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE
THERE ARE FINE GRAIN
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN DIFFERENT
KINDS OF SNOW SO YOU COME UP
WITH LABELS BECAUSE IT IS FUN TO
TALK ABOUT IT.
IT IS USEFUL TO MAKE THOSE
DISTINCTIONS LINGUISTICALLY WHEN
YOU COMMUNICATE.
THAT MAKES MUCH MORE LOGICAL
SENSE TO ME AND THE EVIDENCE
GOES ALONG WITH THAT AS WELL.
>> YEAH.
WELL, AND PRESUMABLY, THINGS
LIKE EMOTIONAL STATES AND THINGS
LIKE THAT ARE MUCH HARDER TO
COMPARE BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS AND
TO VERIFY WHAT EACH PERSON IS
TALKING ABOUT.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> BETWEEN EACH OTHER.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
YEAH.
ALSO, COULD I PUT A PLUG FOR
ANOTHER COOL PAPER FROM A GROUP
THAT RECENTLY SHOWED THAT
PEOPLE'S KNOWLEDGE OF ABSTRACT
CONCEPTS IS MUCH MORE VARIABLE.
WHAT YOU THINK JUSTICE IS AND
WHAT I THINK JUSTICE IS IS LESS
SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU THINK TABLE
IS AND I THINK TABLE IS.
IT CAN BE SHOWN WITH BRAIN
IMAGES APPROACHES AND STUDIES
BETWEEN WORDS.
IDIOSIN CONTRACTIC TOWER OF
BABBLE CAME OUT LAST YEAR.
AN INTERESTING PAPER.
>> IT IS AN INTERESTING THOUGHT,
GOING BACK TO LUDWIG
WECHENSTEIN.
THE BEETLE IN THE BOX.
IS YOUR BEETLE IN YOUR BOX THE
SAME AS MY BEETLE IN MY BOX?
IT IS AN INTERESTING THING TO
THINK ABOUT, FOR A MOMENT,
ANYWAY.
>> ALTHOUGH THE PATIENTS, EVEN
THOUGH THAT IS TRUE, THE
PATIENTS WITH BROCA'S APHASIA DO
STILL HAVE MORE DIFFICULTY IS IN
GENERAL WITH WORDS THAT ARE
CONSIDERED CONTENT WORDS,
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THOSE
CONTENT WORDS ARE ABSTRACT OR
HIGHLY VISUAL.
WHICH IS I THINK AN INTERESTING
PHENOMENA.
WE PROBABLY NEED TO LOOK A
LITTLE BIT MORE INTO THAT TO TRY
TO UNDERSTAND WHY THAT IS THE
CASE.
>> MM-HMM.
>> THIS IS ACTUALLY TRUE
REGARDLESS OF LANGUAGE
STRUCTURE.
EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE LANGUAGES
IN THE INDO EUROPEAN LANGUAGES
WHERE THE GRAMMATICAL ITEMS ARE
SEPARATE FROM THE CONTENT WORDS,
BUT LANGUAGES LIKE ARABIC AND
HEBREW, WHERE THE GRAMMATICAL
ITEMS ARE EMBEDDED IN THE WORD,
THEY HAVE MANY MORE SUBSTITUTION
ERRORS AS OPPOSED TO DROPPING
THEM OUT.
SUBSTITUTION ERRORS ON THE ITEMS
THAT ARE CONSIDERED KIND OF
GRAMMATICAL VERSUS THOSE THAT
REPRESENT MORE CONTENT
ORIENTATION.
VERY INTERESTING PHENOMENON.
>> SO HERE IS ANOTHER QUESTION
FROM THE GROUP.
EV FEDORENKO'S COMMENTS ON
STORAGE ECHO WHAT IS HAPPENING
IN A.I. AND MACHINE LEARNING.
WHAT SEPARATES THE SUCCESSES OF
A.I., MACHINE LEARNING TODAY
FROM THE POOR PERFORMANCES OF
OLD IS NOT NEW ALGORITHMS BUT
MORE STORAGE, MORE DATA AND MORE
PROCESSING SPEED TO DEAL WITH
INCREASED DATA STORAGE.
MAYBE THAT IS SOMEWHAT OF A
COMMENT RATHER THAN A QUESTION,
BUT ANY ADDITIONAL THINGS TO SAY
ABOUT THAT?
>> I AGREE.
YEAH.
THE AVAILABILITY OF LARGE
COMPUTER, YOU CAN TRAIN A VASTER
AMOUNT OF LANGUAGE.
>> EVELINA, DO YOU THINK THAT
THE A.I. ARCHITECTURES THAT WE
HAVE NOW ARE REPRESENT TATIVE OF
WHAT THE BRAIN IS DOING?
DO WE TAKE IN MILLIONS AND
MILLIONS OF LEXICON ITEMS OR
DOES THE HUMAN BRAIN LEARN ON
DIFFERENT TYPES OF ARCHITECTURE
THAT HAS INPUT, MUCH LESSER
INPUT OF ITEMS?
>> WELL, THERE IS NO QUESTION
THAT HUMAN BABIES LEARN LANGUAGE
DIFFERENTLY IN ALL SORTS OF
WAYS, NOT IN THE AMOUNT OF
INPUT, BUT THE KIND OF INPUT.
THEY ARE LEARNING ABOUT THE
WORLD AND THE MAPPINGS.
THEY LEARN FROM MUCH FEWER
EXPOSURES.
I THINK IT IS A LITTLE BIT -- IT
IS UNDENIABLY THE CASE THAT
USING COMPUTATIONAL VISION
MODELS AND LANGUAGE MODELS FROM
THE NLP FIELD, THEY SEEM TO HAVE
SOMETHING THAT CAPTURES NEURAL
RESPONSES IN PRIMATE BRAINING
AND MOUSE BRAINS AS WELL, A
RECENT PAPER ON VISION IN MICE.
SO SOMETHING ABOUT THEM IS
SIMILAR.
NOW, I THINK WE ARE NOT GOING TO
GET VERY FAR IF WE TAKE ONE
MODEL AND SAYS THIS CAPTURES
THIS AMOUNT OF VARIANCE IN MY
DATA.
THIS APPROACH THAT HAS BEEN
ADVOCATED LOCALLY IN MY
DEPARTMENT BY JIM DeCARO'S
GROUP, INTEGRATIVE BENCHMARKING.
YOU TAKE A WHOLE BUNCH OF MODELS
AND DATASETS AND TRY TO LOOK FOR
TRENDS.
>> YEAH.
>> PROBABLY NONE OF THESE MODELS
ARE RIGHT.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> SOME ARE BETTER THAN OTHERS
AND WE CAN TRY TO LEVERAGE THIS
KNOWLEDGE IN THE GROWING SUITE
OF MODELS TO TRY TO GAIN SOME
INSIGHTS INTO HOW HUMANS MIGHT
BE DOING IT THROUGH SEEING WHICH
OF THESE ASPECTS OF THE MODELS
AFFECT MATCH TO THE HUMAN BRAIN
OR WHAT WE CALL BRAIN SCORES.
>> YEAH.
>> BUT THERE IS A WHOLE LINE OF
WORK TRYING TO USE UNSUPERVISED
LEARNING ALGORITHMS, DEVELOP
MORE HUMAN LIKE LEARNING
ALGORITHMS TO SEE HOW THOSE
MODELS DO AND THAT IS ALSO AN
EXCITING DIRECTION.
>> OKAY, NOW, HERE IS ONE THAT
IS TURNING THE CLOCK BACK
100,000 YEARS OR SOMETHING LIKE
THAT.
SO HOW DOES QUOTE-UNQUOTE
MECHANISM FIT INTO THIS
DISCUSSION ABOUT LANGUAGE
EVOLUTION?
THE QUESTIONER SAYS THAT THEY'VE
READ THAT NEANDERTHAL MIGHT NOT
HAVE HAD LANGUAGE, NOT BECAUSE
THEY WEREN'T SMART,
QUOTE-UNQUOTE, BUT RATHER THEY
DIDN'T HAVE THE SOPHISTICATED
VOCAL TRACK, YET THEY COULD
DRAW.
SO DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON
THAT?
SO THE QUESTION IS ABOUT YOU
WOULD HAVE A SOPHISTICATED VOCAL
TRACK AND THAT MAKES PART OF THE
DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF WHETHER
HUMANS CAN SPEAK OR NOT.
>> NADIA, DO YOU WANT TO --
WHETHER NEANDERTHALS HAD
LANGUAGE IS QUITE DEBATED.
WE SHOULD NOT JUST SAY THEY
DIDN'T.
WE DON'T KNOW IF THEY DID.
CERTAINLY SOME PEOPLE ARGUE THEY
DID.
BUT IN GENERAL, THAT WAS ONE OF
THE IDEAS FOR WHY OTHER ANIMALS
DON'T HAVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE
THEIR VOCAL TRACKS ARE DIFFERENT
AND THEY CAN PRODUCE ORIGINS OF
SOUNDS.
THAT IS ALMOST CERTAINLY NOT
TRUE.
RESEARCHERS HAVE SPENT A LOT OF
TIME TRYING TO BUILD IN VOCAL
PAP RA US THE TO HAVE HUMAN LIKE
SOUNDS AND THAT IS NOT ENOUGH.
IT IS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE
BRAIN NOT LOW LEVEL MACHINERY.
NEANDERTHALS AND SIMILARLY FOR
HUMAN INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE DEAF,
WE CAN USE OUR HANDS.
WE CAN DEVELOP FULL BLOWN
LANGUAGES USING A MANUAL
MODALITY.
IN FACT, MANY STORIES OF
LANGUAGE ORIGINS FAVOR GESTURES
RATHER THAN VOCAL.
THERE IS STRONG EVIDENCE TO
ARGUE THAT IT IS SOMETHING
DIFFERENT THAN PRODUCTION
MACHINERY THAT HAS GIVEN US
LANGUAGE.
IT IS 5:56: 56.
SO WE HAVE, WHATEVER, THREE
MINUTES LEFT.
SO I'M GOING TO ASK JUST THE
VERY LAST QUESTION HERE, WHICH
IS, IS THERE TRULY A CONNECTION
BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND CLIMATE?
I DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS ONE IN
THE FIRST PLACE.
VOWEL BASED LANGUAGES IN
TROPICAL REASONS IN HAWAII AND
HARD CONSONANT LANGUAGE SUCH AS
POLISH OR RUSSIAN, IF SO, WHAT
THAT MIGHT REVEAL?
>> YEAH.
I THINK THAT IS A VERY EXCITING
WORK.
CALEB EVERETT AND HIS SON HAS
BEEN IN THE FORE FRONT OF THESE
EFFORTS.
IN SOME SENSE, IT IS NOT TOTALLY
UNEXPECTED.
OUR ENVIRONMENT WILL SHAPE
THINGS ABOUT OUR BEHAVIORS SO IT
IS NOT AT ALL CRAZY IF CERTAIN
KINDS OF SOUNDS ARE BETTER
TRANSMITTED IN CERTAIN
ENVIRONMENTS THAT LANGUAGES WILL
OPTIMIZE THE USE OF THOSE
SOUNDS.
WE ARE VERY EFFICIENT CREATURES.
WE FIND WAYS TO SOLVE PROBLEMS
IN ALL SORTS OF WAYS.
SOME OF THESE ENVIRONMENTAL
FACTORS ARE REFLECTED IN THE
LANGUAGE'S SOUND SYSTEMS THAT
MAKES SENSE.
I DON'T WANT TO TRIVIALIZE THOSE
FINDINGS.
SOMETIMES THAT HAPPENS IN
SCIENCE, OF COURSE, LANGUAGE IS
SEPARATE FROM THOUGHT, BUT UP
UNTIL 10 YEARS AGO PEOPLE WERE
ARGUING FOR QUITE A DIFFERENT
VIEW.
I DON'T WANT TO TRIVIALIZE THOSE
FINDINGS.
I THINK THAT THEY ARE
FASCINATING AND EXCITING STUFF
TO DO THERE TO UNDERSTAND THE
ASPECTS OF THE CLIMATE TO AFFECT
THE LANGUAGE OF SOUND SYSTEMS.
IT IS A COOL RESEARCH PROGRAM.
>> ALL RIGHT, WELL WE ARE DOWN
TO OUR LAST MINUTE.
DR. ARIAS WANTS TO INTERJECT.
PLEASE, WIN.
>> WHAT DO WE UNDERSTAND ABOUT
HOW A NEWBORN CHILD GROWS UP IN
A FAMILY WHERE THREE OR FOUR
LANGUAGES ARE THE PRIMARY
LANGUAGES OF THE FAMILY?
HOW DOES THE BRAIN SEGREGATE
THOSE LANGUAGES ONE FROM THE
OTHER AND WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS
ABOUT THAT?
>> I MEAN, HUMANS AND INFANTS,
INCLUDING INFANCY, ARE VERY
SOPHISTICATED STATISTICAL
LEARNERS.
IF YOU HAVE DIFFERENT LANGUAGES,
THEY HAVE DIFFERENT STATTAL
PROPERTIES, NOT JUST THE SIGNAL.
BUT YOUR MOM MAY ALWAYS SPEAK IN
CHINESE AND YOUR DAD IN ENGLISH.
WE PAY ATTENTION TO THOSE
THINGS, RIGHT.
FROM JENNY SAFFRON'S SEMINAL
FINDINGS, HUMANS ARE VERY GOOD
AT PAYING ATTENTION TO ALL SORTS
OF REGULARITIES IN THEIR
ENVIRONMENTS.
YEAH, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THEY
RUN INTO PROBLEMS ACQUIRING
MULTIPLE LANGUAGES.
THEY DON'T GET CONFUSED.
BEING YOUNG, IF YOU WANT TO
LEARN MULTIPLE LANGUAGES, IT
SEEMS EASIER.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THE NEXT SESSION PERHAPS OR
MAYBE NEXT YEAR WE CAN START
THINKING ABOUT TIME MACHINES AND
OTHER THINGS THAT WE CAN USE TO
ADVANCE OURSELVES.
WELL, ANYWAY, THIS HAS REALLY
BEEN GREAT FUN AND I THANK THE
BOTH OF YOU, EV AND NADIA, FOR
REALLY INCREDIBLY WONDERFUL
TALKS AND REALLY STIMULATING
DISCUSSION THIS AFTERNOON.
WE COULD GO ON FOR I THINK
ANOTHER HOUR IF WE HAD THE TIME,
BUT ALL GOOD THINGS DO COME TO
AN END.
SO WE THANK YOU BOTH AGAIN FROM
THE BOTTOMS OF OUR HEARTS FOR
TAKING THE TIME WITH US THIS
AFTERNOON AND STAY SAFE AND BE
WELL AND WHO KNOWS, WE MAY BE
CALLING YOU BACK SOMETIME IN THE
FUTURE FOR REPRIZE OF THIS
SESSION.
>> THANK YOU.
>> BYE-BYE.